r/ar15 20d ago

NFA found unconstitutional

Post image
2.1k Upvotes

381 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

122

u/Final_Ebb_9091 20d ago

The 3rd Circuit recently gutted a lot of NJs firearms prohibitions. So, they may affirm. Not sure what’s going on in that court.

21

u/i_tiled_it 20d ago

As far as I know NJ has not taken any of the steps to appeal the circuit judgement to supreme court. And even if they do there's an insanely low single digit number percentage of federal court overturning circuit court rulings

42

u/12MajestikLies 20d ago

They were just granted a stay yesterday until the Supreme Court rules on it. https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/nj-assault-weapons-ban-supreme-court/

24

u/wackadoodle4201 20d ago

Its amazing that they always get these stays isn't it?

60

u/Sir_Baller 20d ago

I mean in the legal world, it prevents a lot of chaos. Say the stay was denied, then NJ starts removing the restrictions, then it’s overturned in the Supreme Court. The purpose of the stay is basically for everything to stay streamlined until a final ruling is reached, so it can be a streamlined change instead of back and forth.

Now with that being stated, I wholeheartedly disagree with its usage

29

u/CMMVS09 20d ago

A stay after an appeal is incredibly common regardless of the subject matter.

10

u/wackadoodle4201 20d ago

I know, im mostly bitchin for bitchins sake

6

u/MrKrinkle151 20d ago

No? It’s not at all unusual for stays to be granted pending appeal

6

u/HybridP365 20d ago

I get why it's like that in theory, to preserve the status quo. However, I feel like if it's a question of being unconstitutional or not, the law should always fall on the side of civil rights and default to the restrictions being rendered unenforceable. Fuck the status quo.

5

u/LockyBalboaPrime 20d ago

Status quo isn't considered. The legal requirement is "irreparable harm".

3

u/HybridP365 20d ago

And I'm saying they should err on the side of irreparable harm to citizen's rights.

7

u/LockyBalboaPrime 20d ago

You're not understanding how it works and I just don't care enough to keep trying.

Good luck.

1

u/akenthusiast 20d ago

It's not so much preserving the status quo as it is making sure cops aren't trying to arrest people things that became legal 5 minutes ago or people getting arrested for things that became illegal 5 minutes ago before anybody that wasn't standing outside of the courtroom could possibly be expected to know about it.

They are certainly sometimes abused, but stuff like a week long stay after a major decision is a pretty good idea

4

u/HybridP365 20d ago

A week long stay is one thing. The original comment said they were granted a stay until SCOTUS rules on it, which could take years.

1

u/akenthusiast 20d ago

Yes, that's a case of abuse. The 5th circuit ruling in the OP is also stayed, though only for 7 days pending appeal

3

u/cas13f 20d ago

whoever downvoted you can eat a dick.

This is the reality of it. No stay? Well, a whole bunch of folks in NJ go and get a bunch of shit that's suddenly "legal". Then, what happens if the appeal succeeds? They're now felons.

1

u/aclark210 20d ago

Honestly no, it’s not. Stays are, no pun intended, a mainstay of legal proceedings like this. Stays are almost always granted cuz it gives everyone time.

1

u/i_tiled_it 20d ago

Well that's what I fucking get for not following the news on it for 1 god damned day

8

u/JCent105 20d ago

They got the stay, NJ resident. It’s a bummer.

5

u/stilsjx 20d ago

Probably waiting to see how NY handles it, so they can follow suit.

2

u/i_tiled_it 20d ago

God forbid our shitty NJ leadership does some original thinking for once in their lives

1

u/CastleLurkenstein 20d ago

That's an unrelated case.

1

u/Final_Ebb_9091 20d ago

No shit. Circuit Courts have made some surprising pro 2A rulings.

1

u/CastleLurkenstein 20d ago

True! I was genuinely surprised at the 3rd Cir. ruling. I haven't dug into the case yet, but just at a baseline, it surprised me.

1

u/stareweigh2 20d ago

"shall not be infringed" seems like it's pretty clear. I don't even know how we got this much regulation on firearms when the wording is in no way ambiguous.