Important Updates On New Jersey Lawsuits: Right To Carry & Magazine Ban Cases

By Daniel Schmutter, Esq.

A Magazine Ban is a Gun Ban
Important Updates On New Jersey Lawsuits: Right To Carry & Magazine Ban Cases

New Jersey – -( Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs’s challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry laws is one of the next in line to be considered for possible acceptance by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our petition asking the Supreme Court for “certiorari” (to accept the appeal) in the carry permit lawsuit, Rogers v. Grewal, has been scheduled for a February 22, 2019 conference with the Justices. Because the State of NJ has waived the filing of an opposition brief, the Justices can require the state to file a responsive brief, which would further delay the Court’s consideration of whether to take the case.

Also, the Justices may have independent reasons to delay consideration of whether to accept the case (as they did for several weeks when they considered taking a previous carry case brought by Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) several years ago). There is simply no way to know precisely when there will be a decision on whether to take the case. ANJRPC will issue alerts with updates when appropriate.

Meanwhile, we are very pleased to report that six amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have been filed supporting our request that the Supreme Court agree to hear the case. These briefs have been submitted to the high court by other organizations and individuals supporting our case. The amicus briefs filed to date include:

1) Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, Second Amendment Foundation, John Jillard, Mark Cheeseman, Jay Factor, George Greco, Jeffrey Muller, written by David D. Jensen, Esq.

This brief argues that this case presents the ideal vehicle for the Court to address the issue of handgun carry outside the home. This is because (1) New Jersey law does not distinguish between concealed and open carry, and therefore the Court need not deal with the differences between those two forms of carry and how the Constitution may or may not deal with such differences and (2) New Jersey’s restrictive rule for carry permits is uniform statewide and firmly entrenched and established in statutory, regulatory, and judicial decisional law, and therefore the restrictive approach being challenged cannot simply be waived or altered by local authorities or local practice.

2) 23 State Attorneys General

The Attorneys General from 23 states have filed a brief arguing to the Court that objective shall issue laws have a positive impact on public safety both because permit holders are particularly law abiding compared to the population as a whole and because armed law abiding citizens improve public safety by virtue of being armed.

The states are Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

3) National Rifle Association written by Paul D. Clement, Esq., Erin E. Murphy, Esq., and William K. Lane III, Esq.

The National Rifle Association has filed a brief providing an extensive discussion of the text and structure of and the history surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as an analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller in the context of handgun carry outside the home.

4) National African American Gun Association, Inc. written by Stephen P. Halbrook, Esq. and Nezida S. Davis, Esq.

The National African American Gun Association, Inc. has filed a brief discussing in detail how the history and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment relates to the right to carry arms for personal protection in public, especially as it implicates discretionary deprivation of that right to black citizens in the post-Civil War and Jim Crow eras.

5) Law Enforcement and State Associations written by Dan M. Peterson, Esq., C. D. Michel, Esq., Sean Brady, Esq., and Anna Marie Barvir, Esq.

Six law enforcement organizations and eight state firearms associations have filed a brief providing extensive data on the extreme law-abiding nature of carry permit holders, demonstrating that New Jersey has failed to show that its restrictive law serves any public safety interest and that nationally, law enforcement officers overwhelmingly favor private citizen carry as an augmentation to their efforts at maintaining public safety. The brief further shows that such citizen carry was very common and largely universal in the early republic.

The organizations are: Western States Sheriffs’ Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, CRPA Foundation, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Gun Owners’ Action League Massachusetts, Gun Owners of California, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association.

6) American Civil Rights Union was written by Kenneth A. Klukowski, Esq.

The American Civil Rights Union has filed a brief showing how the lower courts are in disarray as to what level of scrutiny to apply to cases implicating the Second Amendment. Not only do courts, and judges within those courts, disagree on what level of scrutiny to apply, but even where courts have settled on intermediate scrutiny as the standard for certain types of Second Amendment cases, those courts apply vastly differing versions of intermediate scrutiny, such that cases are being decided under highly variable and disparate rules.


Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs's challenge to New Jersey’s recent law restricting magazine capacity to 10 rounds continues to advance. The preliminary injunction phase of the case is complete, and we are now back before the District Court for a final decision on the full merits of our claims. After the District Court makes its decision, the case is likely to proceed back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for an appeal on the full merits, which would be a necessary step before the case could ultimately be presented to the Supreme Court for consideration. Unlike the preliminary injunction phase, which proceeded very rapidly, these next steps will likely proceed according to a normal litigation pace.

Support The Lawsuits Click Here To Donate!

Please forward this article to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.

Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs

About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state and federal level that would infringe upon these rights. Visit:

  • 18 thoughts on “Important Updates On New Jersey Lawsuits: Right To Carry & Magazine Ban Cases

    1. What the Magazine Ban Update should have said but didn’t is that the NRA lost. Also, preliminary injunctions can be appealed to SCOTUS. Lawyers should know this but you know gun-rights lawyers, failed ambulance chasers.

    2. Just another gun control scheme doomed to failure in that people are defying the high cap mag ban law. What these anti-gun buffoons will do next is limit the mags to 5 rounds on down to having to keep mags unloaded until needed. Bottom line is control the ammo equals control of the people.

    3. Lets face it folks most of us on this forum will never see concealed or open carry in our life times in new jermany.With bullshit support from the n.r.a. and a state that continues to vote liberals into office decade after decade nothing will change.Even if somehow republicans ever gain control again it won’t matter (Chris Christy ) they will hide from this issue and do nothing . Get out while you still can and let this shit hole space called n.j. die a slow painful death that it deserves and the left can live here and pay & pay & pay.

    4. So many lies. Instead of arguing that the manner of carry is not relevant because New Jersey handgun carry permits do not require one to carry openly or concealed, the petition argues:

      1) The Rogers’ cert petition argues that 19th-century cases cited by Heller upheld prohibitions on concealed carry because Open Carry was allowed. A lie, of course.
      These cases upheld prohibitions on concealed carry because the courts held that concealed carry was cowardly, criminal, and not a right under either the Second Amendment or its analog in its state constitution.

      2) The Rogers’ cert petition argued that “a State may prohibit the open or concealed carry of firearms, [but] it may not ban both.” Another lie. The Heller decision and all 9 justices on the court were in agreement that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned. The five justices in the majority held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, Open Carry is noble, and Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      3) The Rogers’ cert petition claims that the three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii held that “the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public”—whether through carrying a handgun openly or concealed. Another fat lie. The three-judge panel decision said that it was bound by the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision which held that there is no right to concealed carry.

      The Rogers’ cert petition is chock full of lies and citations which will fail a cite-check if the clerks bother to go that far.

      The justices should deny the Rogers’ cert petition if for no other reason than it is an insult to their intelligence.

      Here is a brief audio excerpt of Justice Scalia reading from his decision in District of Columbia v. Heller where he flat out states that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned. In fact, the Supreme Court approved of bans on concealed carry foremost on their list, ahead of bans on felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms.

      1. @CN, So are you saying that cert should be denied in favor of a case that presents better facts or that cert should be denied in favor of a better set of lawyers?

        1. Wild Bill – I’m saying that the cert petition should be denied with a concurrence to the denial of cert joined by every Justice who supports the Second Amendment. A concurrence in which the justices make it perfectly clear that they are tired of these so-called gun-rights groups filing lawsuits which conflict with the Heller and McDonald decisions.

            1. Wild Bill – Cut back on the crack. Your last post was grammatically gibberish.

              But then again even if it were grammatically correct, all of your posts are gibberish so neve rmind.

    5. Mr. Daniel Schmutter,
      I sincerely hope the merits of your magazine ban appeal include that the ban is in violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constiution (States can not create Ex Post Facto Laws). Supreme Court precedent has held that a law can not be described as Ex Post Facto if no punishment is involved. This magazine ban clearly is Ex Post Facto since the punishment for possession a magazine greater than 10 rounds is a felony conviction. It’s also next to impossible to effectively enforce (except as a consequence of other criminal convictions) without infringing upon the civil liberties of citizens. This law should be struck down immediately.

      1. Whenever someone tells another person what they should argue the should provide pinpoint citations to case law which supports the position(s) they say should be argued.

        Because if there is no case law in support of your positions then honey baby, you are going to lose.

        It is hard enough winning when one has 100 years and more of case law on his side.

        1. @ Charles, good job attempting to alienate someone that is on our side. Good example of how some out there make 2A support more difficult.

          1. Clifffalling – Those of us who support the Second Amendment are better served by having the morons on the opposite side.

      2. And yet your link proves that you are a moron Meghan. It was better for you to say nothing and leave folks in doubt.

    Comments are closed.