So, does this mean that NJ has decided to throw in the towel and won’t motion for a stay or appeal to SCOTUS?
Likely due to pressure from other limiting states that don’t want their unconstitutional laws impacted.
I’d find that hard to believe… unless they have something unanticipated up their sleeve.
According to AI, there is no specific date, So 7/31 to me seems like an arbitrary date chosen by NJ. This is either to give them time to notify all PDs, in state FFLs, and out of state FFLs. Or it’s to give them time to come up with some new convoluted plot.
Instead of paintng themselves further into a corner, they are opting to keep a low profile about it. The MSM is helping by not really covering it, so not many outside the 2A community know what’s going on. The Democrat “machine” is redirecting its efforts to other courts more as a “hail mary” than a crafty plan. At this point, NJ doing anything will work aganst them.
This has them apoplectic and foaming at the mouth. They will come up with something spiteful, Maybe they’ll release the hounds again to burn down a city or two.
EDIT: Maybe they are busy engineering a mass shooting to create a crisis to exploit. 
I may just end up getting this printed and framed…
Joe LoPorto follow up to this broadcast:
…I wanted to reiterate a few things. As of right now, the restrictions on both magazine capacity and rifles falling under the current definition of an “assault firearm” under New Jersey law, including both the firearms specifically named in the law and their functional equivalents based on the combination of “evil features,” are, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable in a court in this state.
The question most are wrestling with is when it will be officially safe to openly engage in that conduct or for the commercial side of things to engage in broadly selling those products to consumers in this state.
Just to be completely clear, what follows here is not legal advice but my idle speculation:
The likely date of the mandate coming down to the district court is August 10, but that doesn’t change the enforceability of the laws versus where we are today.
The possibility of a stay is the reason to exercise caution right now.
So, how likely is a stay? We discussed it on the show last night. As a general matter, district courts and appellate courts do have a bias towards maintaining the status quo when there is a pending review of a particular decision. However, that deference to the status quo is much more significant in cases that are in an interlocutory posture. A district court grants a TRO (as was the case in Koons/Siegel), that TRO is appealed to a Circuit Court, and either the district court or the appellate court will almost certainly be biased towards the status quo because of the early-stage nature of things, and they would be inclined to stay their decisions pending review.
ANJRPC has 8 YEARS of record development, including multiple trips up to the circuit court and the Supreme Court, and, as to the main questions in these consolidated cases, this was a final, merits-based decision rooted in an extensive case record influenced now by multiple Supreme Court decisions. There is no doubt how the Supreme Court will view the decision in ANJRPC.
The Supreme Court would rarely grant a stay in a fully developed case. And the Third Circuit has no special reason to be deferential to the status quo in this instance. By comparison, Koons/Siegel, which is likely imminent, is still in an interlocutory posture, and while the case record is extensive, that record is not complete. If the Third Circuit strikes down a wider swath of sensitive places and the state chooses to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, the need for deference to the status quo would be higher in that scenario.
In ANJRPC, the majority specifically wrote that while either of the parties could have asked the Court to hold its opinion until after Viramontes, no party made such a request.
Additionally, as a general matter, no party is entitled to Supreme Court review, and with a docket of approximately 70 cases a year distilled out of thousands of applications for review, no party to a civil matter, no state, and no circuit court should assign any high probability that SCOTUS will hear a case in any given term.
So, while this should not in any way be considered legal advice, my personal prediction is that there is no stay forthcoming.
But the commercial market (FFLs, dealers and distributors) would likely wait for decisions on potential stays to be final before broadly selling or engaging in commerce in affected products (standard rifles and magazines). That kind of cautious approach would be prudent. And decisions on motions for stays will likely be fully settled in just a few weeks or months.
Or, and there is a small (not statistically zero) possibility, that the state won’t bother at all and simply file their cert petition, and issue guidance to law enforcement agencies on how to proceed on enforcement of the portions of the law left intact. If the state says it’s no longer enforcing the law, that is game over, at least for now. …
1 Like
Check this out.
The mods need to start a big 'ol countdown timer on the forum homepage.
I’m curious to see if any of the gun shops will open at 12:01 am for a ‘First Day’ sale.
1 Like
That bill has been introduced several times since…2022? Didn’t pass in previous years, doubt it’s going to pass now. It’s a slight possibility, but I’m not worrying over it.
It’s definitely a “retread” bill, nothing new that was drafted specifically for ANJRPC v. Platkin.
We will get some kind of tantrum legislation. I suspect it will be tempered by harsh legal advice and the DNC finally recognizing a shift in the overton window on an armed civilian populace.
While I’m not going to post in public to give them ideas, I do see a path that largely removes motivation for fighting the law and still 100% allows them to harass minorities at will while being more complex to challenge.
Using permits to create a barrier to simple possession is legally fraught and will 100% inform the cases currently underway about how the permit system is used as a deliberate barrier to exercising a right. So they probably don’t want to do exactly what everyone suggested they would do and the court told them they should not do.
So…
Something tells me the Third Circuit would rule against that law so fast their heads would spin.
3 Likes
This is good to keep on hand for reference. it is hard to find originalist stuff on 2A specific to NJ.
William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and New Jersey’s first attorney general, stated, “What, indeed, is a militia but the people themselves prepared to act as soldiers for the purpose of resisting oppression and securing their rights. To be prepared for war is the way to prevent it; to be ready in arms to meet and resist tyranny never fails to deter its approach. Tyrants dread freemen, when freeman not only have arms in their hands, but know how to use them.”
2 Likes
Yes that letter is legitimate
1 Like
“develop practical guidance” how about this for a start
- go dig up underground cache of magazines
- grind off rivets and epoxy
- go buy new mags.