New Jersey Asks Supreme Court to Revisit Its AR-15 and Magazine Ban Defeat
New Jersey has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the ruling that struck down its bans on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. Its petition ties both prohibitions to the coming decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, making clear why the constitutional rule in those AR-15 cases matters to gun owners far beyond Illinois and Connecticut.
The October 1 petition, brought by Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and other state officials, asks the justices to hold the New Jersey case until they decide Viramontes and Grant. Then, “if appropriate,” the state wants the Court to grant review, vacate the Third Circuit’s judgment, and send the case back for reconsideration.
New Jersey lost on both rifles and magazines. It now wants another opportunity to defend both bans under whatever rule the Supreme Court announces.
New Jersey Wants Both Bans Reconsidered
The petition follows the July 17 en banc decision in the combined New Jersey litigation, including the ANJRPC and Cheeseman challenges. Ten of the Third Circuit’s 15 judges joined the judgment holding the challenged rifle and magazine prohibitions unconstitutional.
As AmmoLand reported after that ruling, the court rejected New Jersey’s attempt to exclude ordinary semiautomatic rifles from the Second Amendment. It also recognized magazines as protected arms and rejected the state’s politically selected ten-round cutoff.
The ruling covers the semiautomatic rifles challenged under New Jersey’s assault-firearm provisions and magazines holding more than ten rounds. Challenges involving semiautomatic pistols, shotguns, and other covered weapons were returned for further proceedings.
The state’s anticipated Supreme Court petition has now arrived. Its requested remedy would reopen a judgment gun owners already won.
Why the AR-15 Cases Matter to Magazine Bans
Viramontes and Grant are scheduled for argument December 2, beginning at 10 a.m. The consolidated cases concern Cook County’s and Connecticut’s prohibitions on AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Those granted questions do not directly challenge standalone magazine bans. But New Jersey argues that the decision will likely clarify the standard for magazine restrictions because rifle and magazine challenges present “overlapping methodological questions.”
That connection is central to the national fight.
Courts upholding bans have disputed what counts as an “arm,” how common use should be measured, and whether historical restrictions justify prohibiting possession of modern firearms and magazines. The Third Circuit rejected theories that reduce constitutional protection to whatever equipment judges believe citizens need.
A gun owner does not have to empty a magazine during a defensive shooting to establish its lawful purpose. Keeping a loaded firearm ready for an emergency is itself an exercise of the right. The Constitution does not require Americans to prove that the eleventh round will save their lives before they may possess it.
ANJRPC has already pressed the magazine issue in its own amicus brief supporting the rifle challengers. As AmmoLand’s amicus roundup explains, the organization seeks guidance for magazine litigation as well as meaningful limits on historical analogies.
New Jersey and the gun-rights plaintiffs recognize the connection. They want opposite results.
Common Use Must Have Constitutional Consequences
The Third Circuit’s decision created a direct conflict with appellate rulings upholding rifle or magazine bans. New Jersey’s petition brings its losing side of that conflict to the Supreme Court.
The constitutional principle is straightforward: government cannot ban commonly possessed arms for lawful purposes by attaching an inflammatory label to them. An AR-15 does not lose protection because lawmakers call it an “assault weapon.” A commonly owned magazine does not become constitutionally disposable because they call its capacity “large.”
A clear Supreme Court decision enforcing that principle could reinforce the Third Circuit’s ruling and undermine the reasoning used to sustain magazine bans elsewhere. A narrow decision leaving those questions unresolved could permit more years of litigation.
That concern is already part of AmmoLand’s coverage of Duncan v. Bonta. California’s magazine-ban challengers have sought direct review rather than another cycle of waiting, reconsideration, and a fresh Supreme Court petition.
New Jersey specifically requests a hold followed by a possible return to the lower courts. Gun owners should understand what that could mean for the time required to obtain enforceable relief.
New Jersey’s Bans Remain Enforceable
The October petition does not create a new stay. The Third Circuit stayed its mandate on August 4, allowing New Jersey’s restrictions to remain enforceable while Supreme Court proceedings unfold.
The July judgment has not been vacated. The Supreme Court has not granted this petition or added magazine bans to the questions it will decide in Viramontes and Grant.
New Jersey has secured delay and is seeking reconsideration. Its citizens remain subject to prohibitions the Third Circuit held unconstitutional.
The coming AR-15 decision must give lower courts a rule they cannot evade through legislative labels, artificial distinctions between rifles and their magazines, or demands that citizens justify owning effective defensive arms. New Jersey’s petition shows exactly how much rides on that rule.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.