CJack 138 Posted August 2, 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 19-3142 Association New Jersey Rifle, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al 3-18-cv-10507 O R D E R The mandate issued on 12/3/20 is hereby recalled in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision vacating the judgment of this Court with costs and remanding the matter for further proceedings. For the Court, s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit Dated : 8/1/22 Cc: All counsel of record US 3rd Order.pdf 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartyZ 692 Posted August 2, 2022 What does this mean? I don't speak legalese 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CJack 138 Posted August 2, 2022 1 minute ago, MartyZ said: What does this mean? I don't speak legalese "We got our a** kicked by SCOTUS and we are sending this a** kicking down to district court so they can swallow pride and rule the mag ban unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but looks like its now District Court who need to rule mag ban as unconstitutional - i.e People get back to "normal" capacity mags like rest of the USA. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartyZ 692 Posted August 2, 2022 Nice explanation. I can't wait to start ordering me some 30 round mags. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kc17 622 Posted August 2, 2022 I gotta say, it'll be nice to have standard capacity mags in self defense firearms again, but the biggest thing I'm looking forward to is standard capacity for my .22cal AR. The 10 round mag is a real bummer with that. Pinging steel, doing multiple targets, etc... the mag is empty just as you get going. Any thoughts on a time frame? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 2, 2022 What this says is that the circuit court isn't deciding on this. They have passed the buck back down for some lower court judge to put their name on a bad decision. Then it will be sent back up. Then they will likely pull a panel of three that will say yeah a mag ban is no bueno. Then they will say but no... and call for en banc. Then they can proceduraly drag that out for years. Then they will say mag ban fine. Then it will go back to the supreme court. I'm hoping that's not the way it goes, but it sure it looking like it. California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostboy 105 Posted August 2, 2022 1 hour ago, kc17 said: I gotta say, it'll be nice to have standard capacity mags in self defense firearms again, but the biggest thing I'm looking forward to is standard capacity for my .22cal AR. The 10 round mag is a real bummer with that. Pinging steel, doing multiple targets, etc... the mag is empty just as you get going. Any thoughts on a time frame? Yes! Same for my m9-22. I'm out here trying to have some fun, not reload 50 times in 15 minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bomber 1,091 Posted August 2, 2022 22 minutes ago, raz-0 said: California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez. What about pinned muzzle brakes and stocks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,682 Posted August 2, 2022 2 hours ago, MartyZ said: What does this mean? I don't speak legalese That's a great quote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Bomber said: What about pinned muzzle brakes and stocks? That’s a different suit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oneshot 45 Posted August 2, 2022 I'll be dead by the time these jackwads give us back our rights. Ugh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bushmaster1313 61 Posted August 3, 2022 The case will now is now back at the Third Circuit. I have no idea what happens next Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted August 4, 2022 The 9th circuit just did the same thing with the CA AWB that was GVR’d back from scotus. Remanded it to the district court to rehear the case. 100% an attempt to delay because they have no ground to stand on. Edit: where does this say it is the 3rd circuit remanding it back to the District? After rereading it it sounds like the 3rd district is accepting that SCOTUS remanded it back to them and are recalling the case for additional hearings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bushmaster1313 61 Posted August 4, 2022 1 hour ago, voyager9 said: Edit: where does this say it is the 3rd circuit remanding it back to the District? After rereading it it sounds like the 3rd district is accepting that SCOTUS remanded it back to them and are recalling the case for additional hearings. You might be right it is not clear that the 3rd Circuit is sending back down to the District Court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CJack 138 Posted August 4, 2022 I aint no lawyer, but the document says "remanding the matter for further proceedings".. right ? https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2021/10/what-does-remand-for-further-proceedings-mean/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted August 4, 2022 45 minutes ago, CJack said: I aint no lawyer, but the document says "remanding the matter for further proceedings".. right ? https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2021/10/what-does-remand-for-further-proceedings-mean/ Right. It was SCOTUS doing the remanding.. technically a Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR) back to the Circuit. The way I read it is that the District is recalling their previous mandate (ruling) on the case because Scotus told them to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted August 4, 2022 On 8/2/2022 at 5:24 PM, raz-0 said: What this says is that the circuit court isn't deciding on this. They have passed the buck back down for some lower court judge to put their name on a bad decision. Then it will be sent back up. Then they will likely pull a panel of three that will say yeah a mag ban is no bueno. Then they will say but no... and call for en banc. Then they can proceduraly drag that out for years. Then they will say mag ban fine. Then it will go back to the supreme court. I'm hoping that's not the way it goes, but it sure it looking like it. California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez. Wasn't it part of the NYSRPA v Bruen Supreme Court ruling that they had a finite time to rule on this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 4, 2022 22 minutes ago, Krdshrk said: Wasn't it part of the NYSRPA v Bruen Supreme Court ruling that they had a finite time to rule on this? Not anywhere i read. There was a warning about slow walking ccw permits specifically to deny rights. The upside of the mag bag cases is that the delay can only be so long unless we ares screwed. DC has a case, and its path To scotus is shorter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted August 4, 2022 I believe there was ruling that they had to re-try those cases and do it in a reasonable timeline in the text. IDK. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 4, 2022 I don't beleive the appellate courts would kick a remanded cases down to lower courts with respect to this case for 2 reasons. 1. Both Appellate and District court rulings were the same. To remand the case again, to an even lower court would suggest the appellate decision was wrong in some respect, but they already ruled on it... that ruling is what's being challenged. I don't beleive a case that's already been ruled on can be struck and remanded. If for example the lower district court reversed opinion, the appellate courts decision still takes precedent because it's a higher court. 2. SCOTUS remanded the case which explicitly states for the appellate court to rehear the cases under Bruen.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 4, 2022 8 minutes ago, JackDaWack said: I don't beleive the appellate courts would kick a remanded cases down to lower courts with respect to this case for 2 reasons. 1. Both Appellate and District court rulings were the same. To remand the case again, to an even lower court would suggest the appellate decision was wrong in some respect, but they already ruled on it... that ruling is what's being challenged. I don't beleive a case that's already been ruled on can be struck and remanded. If for example the lower district court reversed opinion, the appellate courts decision still takes precedent because it's a higher court. 2. SCOTUS remanded the case which explicitly states for the appellate court to rehear the cases under Bruen.. Cool belief. Too bad they already did. It’s literally the op this thread. That’s what that says. The circuit court (i.e. the federal appellate court) is remanding it back to the federal district court. Scotus gvred the case. The only thing the Sprite court is compelled to do is to not stick with their original ruling and reasoning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 4, 2022 9 minutes ago, raz-0 said: Cool belief. Too bad they already did. It’s literally the op this thread. That’s what that says. The circuit court (i.e. the federal appellate court) is remanding it back to the federal district court. Scotus gvred the case. The only thing the Sprite court is compelled to do is to not stick with their original ruling and reasoning. I find it hard to beleive they would vacate an opinion, and then restate it. Which is a good indicator they would be flipping. It was remanded to district in a month? That's a good timeline. The district court will now hear it. It's less "reaching" which is probably why they did it. This is legal damage control. I wouldnt be surprised if it wasn't appealed. It would apply to all of NJ though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted August 4, 2022 On 8/2/2022 at 4:17 PM, CJack said: "We got our a** kicked by SCOTUS and we are sending this a** kicking down to district court so they can swallow pride and rule the mag ban unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but looks like its now District Court who need to rule mag ban as unconstitutional - i.e People get back to "normal" capacity mags like rest of the USA. sorry if this sounds stupid.....but did we ever have normal capacity here in nj? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,323 Posted August 4, 2022 27 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: sorry if this sounds stupid.....but did we ever have normal capacity here in nj? Yes! I had 30 round mags for my Mini 14 before the 1st assault weapons ban. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galapoola 102 Posted August 4, 2022 On 8/2/2022 at 5:24 PM, raz-0 said: What this says is that the circuit court isn't deciding on this. They have passed the buck back down for some lower court judge to put their name on a bad decision. Then it will be sent back up. Then they will likely pull a panel of three that will say yeah a mag ban is no bueno. Then they will say but no... and call for en banc. Then they can proceduraly drag that out for years. Then they will say mag ban fine. Then it will go back to the supreme court. I'm hoping that's not the way it goes, but it sure it looking like it. California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez. No one thought (A) SCOTUS would give us the decision we got. Read some of the comments in the forums, they are laughable now, ha and (B) the NJAG would send out a directive the very next day. Judges do not like to be overturned, it's like being publicly humiliated. They have the cover they need now to keep their progressive creds in tact. This may move faster than we think, we should be hopefully optimistic. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted August 4, 2022 If this happens, it will be nice to reunite with a box of mags that I had to exile out of state. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted August 5, 2022 22 hours ago, raz-0 said: Cool belief. Too bad they already did. It’s literally the op this thread. That’s what that says. The circuit court (i.e. the federal appellate court) is remanding it back to the federal district court. That’s not how I read the notice. The circuit court is recalling their prior decision for further proceedings because scotus vacated and remanded it back to the circuit court. It never mentions the district court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bomber 1,091 Posted August 5, 2022 14 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: sorry if this sounds stupid.....but did we ever have normal capacity here in nj? Yes, and unneutered AR's. Flim-Flam Florio gave us N.J.'s AWB in 1990 (four years before the Clinton AWB). He got bounced out on his ass after one term but the AWB remains. (Dems didn't have ballot drop boxes and voting that went on for weeks back then). 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FairbanksRusty 64 Posted August 5, 2022 6 hours ago, Bomber said: Yes, and unneutered AR's. Flim-Flam Florio gave us N.J.'s AWB in 1990 (four years before the Clinton AWB). He got bounced out on his ass after one term but the AWB remains. (Dems didn't have ballot drop boxes and voting that went on for weeks back then). Think about that…….that’s 32 years ago. Some members on this forum weren’t born yet! 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 5, 2022 9 hours ago, voyager9 said: That’s not how I read the notice. The circuit court is recalling their prior decision for further proceedings because scotus vacated and remanded it back to the circuit court. It never mentions the district court. What do you think remand means? It means to be sent back. You can't send the case back to yourself. It's been remanded to the district court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites