Jump to content
CJack

SCOTUS - NJ Mag Ban Vacated and Remanded

Recommended Posts

One down, million violations of US Constitution by NJ to go.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html

Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

 

The questions presented are:
1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and
confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding
citizens from possessing magazines in common use
violates the Second Amendment.

2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without
compensation of property that was lawfully acquired
and long possessed without incident violates the
Takings Clause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

what does this mean? they're gonna argue it then make a decision? or they did, and we can go to standard capacity?

It means SCOTUS sent it back to lower case for reconsideration, usually means the law is unconstitutional.  Good for us.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CJack said:

It means SCOTUS sent it back to lower case for reconsideration, usually means the law is unconstitutional.  Good for us.

woohoo!! would be dam awesome to be able to have standard capacity again

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

what does this mean? they're gonna argue it then make a decision? or they did, and we can go to standard capacity?

It means the circuit decision is vacated and they’re told to reconsider based on Bruen.   So one of two things:  1) they find it unconstitutional based on Bruen or 2) they come up with even more elastic logic to uphold the ban. 
The question I have is if ANJRPC can refile for an injunction based on the remanding.  That would provide relief while the circuit sits on the case 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, samiam said:

That is nice. Now if they would just address the AWB features restrictions, we'd be making good progress. Is there a case convering that on their docket, similar to this one?

There is a MD (and I think a Ca) AWB case that has been kicked back to lower courts for decision post Bruen. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't going to get injunctive relief and I wouldn't buy 17's for my Glock under an injunctive program.  The problem is that they would be creating repeat and unnecessary injury if they decide to support the ban again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We (NJ) have to hammer courts under the "Common Use" provision non stop. Also reason for every law abiding to exercise ALL of the 2A.. buy buy buy..

I am waiting for the day when SCOTUS rules that anything Govt uses in their day-to-day business is "Common Use".  Local PD / Non Military has SBRs - Common Use. Local PD/Non Military has bazookas - Common Use. Suppressors - Common Use.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

what does this mean? they're gonna argue it then make a decision? or they did, and we can go to standard capacity?

If the 10 round limit is tossed, is there any chance that the previous 15 round limit gets tossed at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, samiam said:

That is nice. Now if they would just address the AWB features restrictions, we'd be making good progress. Is there a case convering that on their docket, similar to this one?

I think one of the cases remanded back was an AWB case(Maryland?). Not sure if a favorable ruling there immediately and directly  helps us. They are in a different Circuit Court. However, note the below FPC case.  I assume this NJ case would benefit from a favorable ruling above.

 

34760D8F-F4CA-4B0D-9550-FAABA45DCE1F.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

what does this mean? they're gonna argue it then make a decision? or they did, and we can go to standard capacity?

SCOTUS officially told the lower court they were wrong. What was done was the judicial equivalent of "Well everything you said was stupid and misguided, but I understand why you were confused. Since we added more clarity, go come up with a new decision."

Which means reach a different conclusion, or try to reach the same conclusion by a different path. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldguysrule649 said:

I think one of the cases remanded back was an AWB case(Maryland?). Not sure if a favorable ruling there immediately and directly  helps us. They are in a different Circuit Court. However, note the below FPC case.  I assume this NJ case would benefit from a favorable ruling above.

 

34760D8F-F4CA-4B0D-9550-FAABA45DCE1F.png

 

Not necessarily, circuit courts disagree sometimes, and that's what SCOTUS is for. 

However, sometimes you can draw conclusions about other circuits potential disposition towards a case based on where the respective circuits fall on a given topic. MD is in the 4th, and they are arguably less awful than the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th. 

Both the 3rd (us) and the 9th historically like to rubber stamp the state by using means balancing less strict than even intermediate scrutiny which which was required by Heller. If you read the reasoning, it's basically rational basis minus the need to prove their is any merit to the belief that what the government has demanded has any influence on the outcome they say it does. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CJack said:

It means SCOTUS sent it back to lower case for reconsideration, usually means the law is unconstitutional.  Good for us.

With SCOTUS instructing lower courts to use one step vs two step scrutiny, we're going to see a mountain of case reconsiderations in lower courts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

Both the 3rd (us) and the 9th historically like to rubber stamp the state 

Ah, yes, the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sprung from the loony left coast.  I don't know how they've not yet been required to clear the bench and start over with smarter justices.

This year, 16 of their rulings went up to the Supreme Court.  15 were overturned.  Still, a better average than in 1985 when they had a stunning 25 of 26 rulings overturned by the Supreme Court.   Their average reversal rate over the last 15 year?  79%

So yeah, a monkey flipping a coin would do statistically much better than the 29 esteemed justices of the 9th circuit.

The embarrassing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 10X said:

Ah, yes, the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sprung from the loony left coast.  I don't know how they've not yet been required to clear the bench and start over with smarter justices.

This year, 16 of their rulings went up to the Supreme Court.  15 were overturned.  Still, a better average than in 1985 when they had a stunning 25 of 26 rulings overturned by the Supreme Court.   Their average reversal rate over the last 15 year?  79%

So yeah, a monkey flipping a coin would do statistically much better than the 29 esteemed justices of the 9th circuit.

The embarrassing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Known in libertarian and right-leaning forums for decades as the "Ninth Circus"...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused (a regular occurrence). Does this mean that Murphy stops ccw in it's tracks by adding all kinds of restrictions, fees, training requirements, sensitive areas, etc. regardless of what Thomas alluded to not doing those things? Does this mean any lawsuits regarding such have to wait to be heard by SCOTUS? Does this mean that at my  current age of 65 I may never be able to ccw in NJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bennj said:

Does this mean that Murphy stops ccw in it's tracks by adding all kinds of restrictions, fees, training requirements, sensitive areas, etc. regardless of what Thomas alluded to not doing those things?

He’s certainly trying to. 

16 minutes ago, bennj said:

Does this mean any lawsuits regarding such have to wait to be heard by SCOTUS?

Yes. It means new lawsuits to challenge the new rules.  They don’t go directly to scotus though.  Start with the lower courts first.  In theory those courts should use Bruen as a guide and nuke them there.  In theory.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bennj said:

I'm confused (a regular occurrence). Does this mean that Murphy stops ccw in it's tracks by adding all kinds of restrictions, fees, training requirements, sensitive areas, etc. regardless of what Thomas alluded to not doing those things? Does this mean any lawsuits regarding such have to wait to be heard by SCOTUS? Does this mean that at my  current age of 65 I may never be able to ccw in NJ?

Here is a good take on the situation from a thread on ar15.com about NY CCW restrictions but applies to N.J. as well:

 

"What you are seeing is what has happened in every other state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry.  Not to the extent NY is going but similar.  The people inconvenienced will complain and changes will be made.  Then lawsuits will happen and then more changes are made.  Then as people adjust to the idea of "people walking around carrying hidden guns" more changes will occur.  My state has had concealed carry for decades and we are still tweaking the law."

"Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to go from may-issue to shall-issue we had a state level pro-gun organization trying to kill the bill for the exact same reasons you mentioned.  The people with connections had permits and very few restrictions.  They threw a fit that going to shall-issue would result in a more involved process, a higher fee, and more restrictions on where they could carry.  They had the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude that you seem to have.  Shall issue passed, barely.  Counties like Wayne County, where Detroit is, dug their feet in and refused to issue any permits for almost a year.  Multiple lawsuits had to be filed against them.  The legislature has gone back many times to tweak the law, remove restrictions, and make other changes to improve things".

"Baby steps, just like how the Dems take away our rights, is how you get the restrictions removed.  The big hurdle is getting shall-issue allowed.  That is still a huge win for NY.  Then you go back and get the restrictions removed".  

 

.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2022 at 9:46 PM, bennj said:

I'm confused (a regular occurrence). Does this mean that Murphy stops ccw in it's tracks by adding all kinds of restrictions, fees, training requirements, sensitive areas, etc. regardless of what Thomas alluded to not doing those things? Does this mean any lawsuits regarding such have to wait to be heard by SCOTUS? Does this mean that at my  current age of 65 I may never be able to ccw in NJ?

To have it settled, yes. You are looking at a 1-2 year horizon minimum, but the good news is that there's already a location case in one of the circuits already. Other good news is that you have to wait that long for a decision, but you do not have to wait that long for an injunction. So if they much with the statute, an injunction can be sought in a much shorter span of time. And we are 3rd circuit, and the judge assigned to the 3rd for such things is Alito. 

I suspect NJ understands this. Which is why they are trying to work within the existing statute. If they do like NY and write up a new statute, they can wind up with an injunction that leaves them with no carry law or significant portions of statute mooted until a decision.  (This is essentially what happened in Chicago when they tried to avoid complying with their carry ban). 

NY is being more ballsy because their justice for such a thing is Sotomayor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...