The original article writer, John Petrolino responded to my inquiry as follows:
"Please feel free to share the following:
On Gun For Hire Radio Episode 588, August 27, 2022 (https://gunforhire.com/blog/the-gun-for-hire-radio-broadcast-episode-588/), Anthony Colandro had Dan Schmutter (the attorney litigating the case) on the show to discuss several different pieces of pending litigation and other topics. Schmutter opened with talking about this case and here is a transcript of the conversation:
Schmutter: So unfortunately, guys, I have to open with some not great news. We just heard from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the magazine case, we were hoping to keep the case up at the Court of Appeals and have…ask the Court of Appeals…and we have asked The Court of Appeals to decide the case on the merits right now. The state was urging them to send it back down to the trial court, the District Court. And unfortunately, we got a two one ruling today that the Third Circuit decided to send it back down to the District Court. And what that does is it just adds another layer of delay. And cost. And so unfortunately, you know, now we're back at the District Court, we have to do that all over again. We'll probably end up back at the Court of Appeals, you know, whichever way it goes, somebody's not gonna be happy. So, you know, it's unfortunate. We were, we were urging the court to not, you know, give in to the state's request to add more delay in cost. And it was a two, one decision. We got a very nice dissenting opinion from Judge Paul meaty. And he agreed with us that there was no reason to send it back down to the trial court, you know, the usual…it is very typical for when something comes down from the Supreme Court for the Court of Appeals to send it all the way back down to the trial court. But that's not unusual. It's actually quite typical. The problem is, in this case, it's not necessary. And there's plenty of precedent for not doing that where it's not necessary or appropriate. And I think we made a very strong case that it's not. But, you know, the court did with the court didn't so we have to live with it. And so we'll you know, we'll fight the fight down at the District Court. But it's disappointing. I mean, they really, you know, our feeling was they should have done the right thing here and just kept it, decided it. And, you know, but that's, that's life.
Colandro: Now, what do we face at the District Court? Is it one judge? Is it a panel?
Schmutter: Yeah it's one judge, the original trial judge that heard it the first time. He gets it back, but he gets it back under a new set of rules. He gets it back now under the rules from the Bruen decision. And so you know, in a sense, he's not starting from scratch because there is a record. It's not like we're starting with a blank slate here. There is a record and there is a favorable record. So, in the sense that we think that the some of the findings that the court made the first time around are very, very helpful to us. So, you know the court is presumably gonna reach out to us at some point soon to, you know, we'll probably have a conference, the court will probably want to know how the parties think the case should proceed, and we'll go from there. And we'll develop our strategy as to what the what the right way to move this forward is. And we'll move it forward. It's just disappointing that we're going to be doing this in a in a court where we really shouldn't have to be. But you know, as you know, we know, as it's a slog, it's a marathon, and we're going to continue fighting. I mean, it's, there's no question or option we're gonna keep this moving. And, you know, we like our chances. We think that…we've talked about this quite a few times now, about how we think Bruen gives us some very, very good tools. And we're going to bring those to bear in the District Court on this case. We'll see what happens. When there's a development, you'll certainly…I hope you'll have me back to talk about it. And we'll see what we'll go from there.
The remand from the Third Circuit back to the lower court can be read here:
As Rooney pointed out in his article (https://savejersey.com/2022/08/3rd-circuit-punts-n-j-10-round-magazine-ban-case-back-to-district-court/), Judge Paul Matey's dissent is worth a full read.
The quick answer is we've been punted back down, again, but that does not mean we're starting from square one. Will we see 15 rounders again in New Jersey? Will we see them by year's end? Will we see magazines larger than 15 rounds in NJ? All great questions, but it's hard to read how this is going to go down. As far as the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision goes, it's clear that putting a restriction on a standard capacity magazine would be unconstitutional, as such restrictions would not have been acceptable at the time of our founding.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to zap me a line if you have more questions or have other tips, leads, etc.
I invite you to contact John directly as he is a 2A supporter and a NJ Resident