Bruen changed the carry permits for us. Are you saying if SCOTUS rules suppressors as ARMS we would then need another NJ court case to get NJ to change the rules around the categorical ban?
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.
There were cases still ongoing 2 years after the Bruen decision. See Francisco Vs Cooke.
Yes, NJ did eventually remove justifiable need from the statute when they added all the other restrictions on carry - so you could get a permit, but it didn’t do anything for you if you wanted to carry the whole day while going to normal places to do normal things.
I don’t remember having to wait long after the Bruen decision. June 23, 2022 SCOTUS decides Bruen, June 24, 2022 NJ AG removes ‘justifiable need’ requirement. Just a month or 2 later thousands of new carry apps start flooding the system. I had my application in by like October. Then they changed things the end of the year and instead of going to the county Judge it is now handled at the local PD. Picked up my 1st permit at the county courthouse in February '23.
I’m no lawyer, so I don’t fully understand how Supreme Court rulings affect existing laws, but I’m hoping a favorable suppressor ruling would have a similar practical effect to Bruen in New Jersey—forcing the state to reconsider laws that may no longer be constitutional.
And the 15 years at that courts
The AG’s office issued a directive to ignore JN about a week after the Bruen decision was published, but it still existed in the statute until the carry killer bill was passed that December.
I was one of the early applicants. I did my qual the week before because I figured it was coming imminently, and would have submitted my application sooner, except NJSP changed the form the day after I got the signatures from all my references so I had to start over.
I have a vz-58 waiting on the decision of Cheeseman v Platkin, My local FFL is hopeful they will remove the restrictions pretty soon because he told me recently he had is 3 year state inspection, and this time around, state police didn’t bother checking his high-cap magazine books.
… While the government argued suppressors are not “arms” because they are not necessary to the functioning of a firearm, the Fifth Circuit rejected that because arms “need not be necessary for a firearm’s functioning but instead must only ‘facilitate armed self-defense.’”
In short, the Fifth Circuit has agreed with the longstanding arguments gun-rights groups have made in hardware cases for years now and, in so doing, rejected the hardware rulings of several other circuit courts.
Perhaps the best case that illustrates this split is the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Duncan v. Bonta. In that case, the Ninth Circuit conceded that “firearms require the use of a magazine in order to operate.” But it then argued that there was no reason any firearm needed a magazine with a capacity over ten rounds to function. …
… Duncan has just been through its 20th Supreme Court conference, with the justices having relisted it a near-record number of times. On Monday, the Court once again declined to take action on it. If the Duncan plaintiffs file a supplemental brief in time for Thursday’s final Supreme Court conference of the term that informs the Court of what looks to be a new circuit split, perhaps that will boost the odds the justices agree to hear the case.
Wolford judgement link and further discussion:
1 Like
Hope Coney Barrett calls in sick.
HRMMMMMMMMMMMMMM:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-4622951/samuel-alito-retires
EDIT:
NPR Retracted:
