NJ Authorities Insist that the Most Widely Owned Semiautomatic Rifles are not ‘Arms’ protected by the 2nd Amendment, Seek to Enjoin Restored AR-15 Rights During Appeal to Supreme Court

From [HERE] New Jersey has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to keep enforcing the state’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines—even after the en banc court ruled those laws violate the Second Amendment. The state filed a motion July 31 asking the Third Circuit to stay its mandate while New Jersey prepares a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Put plainly, New Jersey lost their case in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, consolidated with Cheeseman v. Davenport. Now it wants gun owners to keep living under the unconstitutional laws while the state asks for another chance.

The Third Circuit issued its decision July 17, striking down New Jersey’s restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. The mandate, the formal order putting that judgment into effect, would otherwise issue no sooner than August 7.

New Jersey says its Supreme Court petition is due October 15. It wants the Third Circuit to keep the bans enforceable until the Supreme Court rejects the petition or, should the justices accept the case, until they issue a final decision. Filing the motion itself temporarily pauses issuance of the mandate while the Third Circuit considers the request.

New Jersey Claims Restored Rights Would Cause ‘Irreparable Harm’

The state argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if gun stores begin selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines before the Supreme Court acts. That turns the Constitution upside down. New Jersey treats the continued denial of an enumerated right as a temporary inconvenience for gun owners. At the same time, it characterizes lawful commerce in constitutionally protected arms as an injury to the government.

The state warns that thousands of rifles and magazines could enter New Jersey and become “near-impossible to retrieve” if the Supreme Court later reinstates the bans.

That language deserves attention. New Jersey is not merely concerned about administrative confusion. It is worried that citizens will acquire arms the state may later want confiscated, surrendered, destroyed, or permanently removed from lawful commerce.

The state also warns that people who purchase the affected firearms and magazines could face criminal exposure if the law changes again. That is not an argument for keeping unconstitutional laws in force. It is an admission that New Jersey’s regulatory scheme creates a legal minefield for otherwise law-abiding gun owners. [MORE]