NJ magazine ban case movement

[hostak126]

From ANJRPC:

October 10, 2023. ANJRPC has filed motions in the combined magazine ban and assault firearm ban cases with the lower federal court for “summary judgment” and to exclude illegitimate expert witness testimony attempting to substitute legal argument with irrelevant inflammatory rhetoric. Summary judgment, if granted, would have the effect of ending the cases in favor of gun owners.

 

See copies of the newly filed motions by clicking HERE and HERE.

 

ANJRPC’s magazine ban lawsuit was given new life in 2022 when the U. S. Supreme Court returned it to the lower federal court for reconsideration in light of the Bruen decision. Since then, the case has been tied up in a procedural tangle of court-ordered “discovery,” and became further complicated when it was consolidated with ANJRPC’s separate and more recent assault firearms law challenge. Discovery was recently completed, and accordingly ANJRPC has filed these new motions to exclude the State’s expert testimony and to end the case.

 

The next step is for the State to submit its response by November 3, which will also likely include motions of its own. Two further rounds of briefing are then scheduled to occur, concluding on December 22. Oral argument of the motions will then likely be held in early 2024 followed by an eventual decision by the court. Whichever way the court ultimately decides these motions, these cases will almost certainly be appealed to the middle level federal appeals court.

 

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/doc_176-2_ecf_filed_10062023.pdf

 

Above link was filed by Daniel Schmutter representing ANJRPC on the matter

[hostak126]

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC. v. GREWAL (3:18-cv-10507)

211

Mar 21, 2024

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Peter G. Sheridan: Telephone Conference held on 3/21/2024. In Person Oral Argument set for 4/10/2024 at 11:00 a.m. Courtroom 1 before Judge Peter G. Sheridan re: 174 Motion for Summary Judgment, 175 Motion for Summary Judgment, and 183 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants. (Court Reporter: Shannan Gagliardi (609-815-2750)) (ijf) (Entered: 03/21/2024)

[hostak126]

Clarkson S. Fisher Building
& U.S. Courthouse
402 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
609-989-2065

[DJ0808]

Hard to tell how Sheridan will go with these cases. He previously ruled NJ mag ban was constitutional, however that was pre-Bruen and the case has now been remanded back down the the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to apply the Bruen test.

Really hoping he sides with us because if he does I don't see 3rd Circuit reversing a pro-2A decision from him, which means NJ would have to appeal to SCOTUS and that won't go well for them. 

He's already indicated he's agitated the state has been dragging their feet and trying to keep extending discovery timeline.

[hostak126]

7 minutes ago, DJ0808 said:

Hard to tell how Sheridan will go with these cases. He previously ruled NJ mag ban was constitutional, however that was pre-Bruen and the case has now been remanded back down the the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to apply the Bruen test.

Really hoping he sides with us because if he does I don't see 3rd Circuit reversing a pro-2A decision from him, which means NJ would have to appeal to SCOTUS and that won't go well for them. 

He's already indicated he's agitated the state has been dragging their feet and trying to keep extending discovery timeline.

Agitated by the state is good for us, it's a matter of if he'll follow the Bruen doctrine.

[DJ0808]

It would be huge win for all of us in anti-gun states, not just NJ, if we can get a win here and 3rd circuit upholds it. 

This would setup a much needed circuit split on assault weapon and mag bans that SCOTUS is really looking for to grant certiorari for these challenges. 

[hostak126]

I've procured the time off from work and will be in attendance 

[hostak126]

Bradley P. Lehman
(302) 416-3344
blehman@gsbblaw.com
April 3, 2024
VIA CM/ECF

Hon. Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
United States District Court
402 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

RE: Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs,
Inc., et al. v. Platkin, et al. (“ANJRPC”)
Docket No. 3:18-cv-10507
Cheeseman, et al. v. Platkin, et al.
Docket No. 1:22-cv-04360
Ellman, et al. v. Platkin, et al.
Docket No. 3:22-cv-04397

Dear Judge Sheridan,
On behalf of the Cheeseman plaintiffs, I write to respond to the State’s
supplemental authority letter (ANJRPC Dkt. No. 209) regarding Ocean State
Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, No. 23-1072, 2024 WL 980633 (1st Cir. Mar. 7,
2024) (“OST”). Contrary to what the State claims in its letter, OST, a case involving
a challenge to a ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds,
did not follow the framework provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle
& Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and this Court should not follow
the First Circuit astray.

Among other serious issues with the opinion, OST ignored Bruen’s
admonition against “engag[ing] in means-end scrutiny under the guise of an
analogical inquiry.” 597 U.S. at 29 n.7. Under the guise of comparing the “how” and
“why” of Rhode Island’s magazine ban with the historical analogues offered by
Rhode Island, the First Circuit conducted exactly the sort of interest-balancing
inquiry that Bruen unambiguously forbade in the context of Second Amendment
challenges, essentially ruling that Rhode Island’s ban on common magazines was
constitutional because it “imposes no meaningful burden on the ability of Rhode
Island’s residents to defend themselves” and serves the government’s interest in
preventing the “growing and real threat” posed by “mass shootings.” OST, 2024 WL
980633 at *4, *6. While that analysis bears no similarity to the one required by
Bruen, it is remarkably similar to the invalid interest-balancing regime that Bruen
expressly rejected. 597 U.S. at 26. In fact, the First Circuit’s analysis was even worse
than the old analysis rejected in Bruen because it applied no meaningful scrutiny at
all to the challenged statute.

Further, OST improperly rejected the argument that should have been
dispositive in finding Rhode Island’s ban unconstitutional: magazines holding more
than ten rounds are “in common use” for lawful purposes and therefore cannot be
banned. While the First Circuit claimed that the argument “defies reason,” OST,
2024 WL 980633 at *9, as Plaintiffs have explained in their summary judgment
papers in these consolidated actions, Heller and Bruen establish conclusively that
common use alone renders a ban on a type of “arm” unconstitutional, and that
consideration lies dispositively in the Plaintiffs’ favor.

Sincerely,

/s/ Bradley P. Lehman
Bradley P. Lehman
Counsel for Cheeseman Plaintiffs

cc: All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)

[hostak126]

Arguments have been rescheduled to 4/11 and 4pm

[DJ0808]

Pulled this summary of oral argument notes off of r/Garden state guns:

 

I'm waiting on the full hearing transcripts, but looking at these it seems Judge Sheridan was pressing the state hard about their reasoning for the bans.

Time will tell, however I think it went well for us.

[Greg]

Thanks for the update.

Seems like a lot of BS the state is trying to throw at a wall and see what sticks. 

For some reason the "run while shooter is reloading" burns me up the most. How about someone practice mag drops for a couple hours and be able to reload in under 5 seconds making mags a mute point. 

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but wasn't heller the law of the land for common use?

Edited April 12 by Greg

[DJ0808]

1 hour ago, Greg said:

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but wasn't heller the law of the land for common use?

Heller (2008), Caetano (2016), and Bruen (2022) set the common use standard and that arms can only be banned if they are "dangerous and unusual", the key part being a weapon must be both dangerous and unusual to be banned.

Problem is since tiers of scrutiny (i.e. best interest of the public") is no longer allowed post-Bruen, NJ and other anti-gun states are trying to get around the common use test by saying LCMs and Assault Rifles (both made up terms btw) are "dangerous" while ignoring the second part of the requirement that they also be unusual. Some courts are buying this argument and some are not.

[hostak126]

The state will always argue the antebellum era and post Civil War is the time period the 2nd amendment should go off of, 1791 Text, History, and Tradition is the standard set by Bruen.

[hostak126]

Article by Cam Edwards

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/04/15/federal-judge-weighs-fate-of-nj-gun-and-magazine-ban-n1224523