u/Docsloan1919

Once the Cheeseman mandate issues and jurisdiction returns to the district court, shouldn’t the plaintiffs immediately move for a preliminary injunction covering AR-15 pistols?

From my reading of Cheeseman, the dispositive Second Amendment inquiry is whether the arms are in common use for lawful purposes. If that’s the governing framework, AR-15 pistols seem like the obvious next step.

They’re essentially the same firearm platform the Third Circuit just held is protected. Same operating system. Same magazines. Same controls. Same receivers and internal components in many cases. The primary difference is barrel length and overall length.

It would seem to be a trivial task for the plaintiffs to present evidence that AR-pattern pistols are owned in the millions by law-abiding Americans. If that showing is made, why shouldn’t the district court preserve constitutional rights with a preliminary injunction while the case proceeds?

Looking at the Rule 65 factors, they all seem to favor immediate relief.

* Likelihood of success: Cheeseman appears to make “in common use for lawful purposes” the dispositive inquiry. If AR-15 rifles satisfy that standard, why wouldn’t AR-15 pistols?
* Irreparable harm: Every day citizens are prevented from exercising a constitutional right is another day of irreparable harm.
* Balance of the equities: The State has already had years to defend these restrictions. Cheeseman appears to have substantially narrowed the legal issues.
* Public interest: There is already significant confusion surrounding AR-15 pistols. A preliminary injunction would provide clarity to owners, dealers, law enforcement, and prosecutors while the litigation continues.

More importantly, what arguments does the State realistically have left?

The State is certainly free to argue that AR-15 pistols are constitutionally distinguishable from AR-15 rifles. But after Cheeseman, what is that distinction? They are the same firearm platform in virtually every meaningful respect. If the State believes barrel length or overall length is constitutionally significant, it should have to prove why.
To me, this seems like the exact situation preliminary injunctions exist for. The plaintiffs make a straightforward factual showing that AR-pattern pistols are owned in the millions by law-abiding Americans. The burden then shifts to the State to explain why a shorter version of the same firearm platform should be treated differently under the Second Amendment.

Assuming the mandate returns jurisdiction to the district court without a stay, I’d expect a motion for a preliminary injunction to be one of the very first filings.
Am I missing something procedurally, or is there a strategic reason to wait?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf

Come on Wolford!!!

9-0 in favor of Hemani! It applies Bruen correctly so there is some guidance there.

These decisions will represent a historic turning point for the Second Amendment in New Jersey and beyond. I feel like we missed a real opportunity by not having a celebratory dinner or event right when Bruen officially dropped. We should not make the same mistake when Cheeseman and/or Siegel come down. We should mark the occasion in a big way with something memorable.

As far as I am concerned, they will be the modern day equivalent of the end of Prohibition for the Second Amendment. After years of fighting through the courts against Platkin’s restrictions, sensitive places rules, mag limits, and the long standing AWB, a strong win (or wins) would finally start rolling back some of the worst of NJ’s gun control laws.

Who else is thinking we need to do this right? What kind of event would you want to see if we mark it? What ideas do you have for how the community could come together in the NJ area whenever the decisions drop?

Thoughts?

-Doc