Jump to content
CJack

Mag Ban down to District Court now ?

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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...