Jump to content

ANJRPC v NJ - Magazine size limits & seizures


Recommended Posts



The questions presented are:


1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment.


2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.


Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are standard-issue for some of the most popular handguns and long guns used for self-defense. They are typically owned by law-abiding citizens for all manner of lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting, hunting, and pest control. ... Indeed, the most popular handgun in America -- the Glock 17 pistol -- comes standard with a 17-round magazine. ... And the standard-issue weapon for law-enforcement officers in New Jersey and elsewhere -- the Glock 19 pistol -- comes standard with a 15-round magazine. ... In the past two decades alone, millions of Americans have lawfully purchased firearms with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and hundreds of millions of such magazines are currently in circulation.


In 1990, New Jersey began to regulate magazine capacity, criminalizing the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. ... Nearly 30 years later, and after this Court clarified that the Second Amendment protects individuals rights in Heller, in 2018, it enacted an even more restrictive law, lowering the permissible magazine capacity to 10 (with very few and limited exceptions) for both handguns and long guns. ... In doing so, New Jersey became the eighth state to ban magazines with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, following California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.


Unlike the now-repealed federal law and the laws of most of the states that restrict magazine capacity, New Jersey's ban is not merely prospective; it is retrospective and confiscatory. Law-abiding citizens who lawfully obtained the now-banned magazines and have lawfully possessed them safely and without incident for decades must dispossess themselves of their magazines by (1) surrendering them to law enforcement, (2) transferring or selling them to someone who can lawfully own them, (3) permanently modifying them to accept 10 rounds or fewer, or (4) rendering them inoperable. ... Failure to take one of those steps is a crime, carrying up to a 10-year sentence and $150,000 in fines.


ANJRPC = Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
On 5/6/2022 at 3:01 PM, JTHunter said:

Euler - in other words, the court has sat on this for a year?


I suppose you could look at it that way. You could also consider that the court hasn't denied the case, either. There are about 7000 cases petitioned to the Supreme Court each year. Of those, fewer than 200 are granted certiorari. Of those, about 80 are actually heard.


Meanwhile, the forum software automatically locks any topic that hasn't seen activity for 365 consecutive days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This case is on hold pending NYSPRA opinion.


The last conference of the term is June 23rd.


This case will get a PC, Grant Reverse and Remand, with opinions and dissents issued.


This case won’t be finalized and released until the opinion for NYSPRA is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/30/2022 at 10:43 AM, Euler said:

It's interesting that this case case was granted, while the mag size case from CA was granted/vacated/remanded, although the CA case did specifically question the constitutionality of "2-step" review. This case additionally questions uncompensated takings.

It was GVR'ed


20-1507 ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...