New Jersey Asks SCOTUS For Do-Over

Nov. 4, 2026: On Nov. 3, 2026, the Virginia Citizens Defense League highlighted an amicus brief Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones filed in Viramontes v. Cook County, arguing that AR-15s qualify as semiautomatic machine guns, a characterization critics including commentator Tom Grieve, Breitbart and the blog Not the Bee mocked as self-defeating because it suggests the weapons are already in common use under Second Amendment precedent. VCDL framed the filing as evidence Virginia's own Democratic AG is undermining the state's position ahead of the December 2 arguments. The brief adds another state attorney general's filing to the growing Viramontes record New Jersey is watching, though it does not alter the Third Circuit ruling, the stay, or the Supreme Court's handling of New Jersey's own hold-and-remand petition. (Source)

Oct. 29, 2026: Brady, the gun violence prevention organization, filed a Supreme Court amicus brief backing Cook County and Connecticut's assault weapons bans in Viramontes v. Cook County, adding to the briefing New Jersey is watching for guidance. Brady argues the bans are constitutional because AR-15s and similar rifles are poorly suited to lawful self-defense, which requires imminent threats and proportionate force. Brady President Kris Brown said the weapons are designed for military combat and have been used in six of the seven deadliest mass shootings since September 11. Chief Legal Officer Douglas Letters said the weapons fail traditional legal standards for self-defense. The brief, authored by Sidley Austin attorneys, signals organized gun-control advocacy is now mobilizing around the December 2 arguments, adding another voice urging the Court to uphold rather than strike down the rifle bans New Jersey hopes will shape its own magazine case. (Source)

Oct. 22, 2026: On October 22, 2026, Cook County and Connecticut filed their opening Supreme Court briefs defending their semiautomatic rifle bans in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, arguing the laws satisfy constitutional standards. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called the filings' tactics "creative" attempts to dodge or challenge existing Second Amendment analysis, and said SAF is confident the Court won't be persuaded. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb criticized the governments for clinging to bans on a rifle he said over 30 million Americans own. SAF, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and private citizens in Viramontes, and by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and private citizens in Grant, says it will now file reply briefs responding to the governments' arguments ahead of the December 2 oral arguments. This is the first substantive merits briefing from the defending jurisdictions since the Court agreed to hear the cases, giving New Jersey and other states watching for guidance a clearer look at the legal theories opponents will rely on. (Source)

New Jersey has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to park its own losing case and give the state another shot at defending bans the Third Circuit already struck down.

The October 1 petition, filed by Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, asks the justices to hold New Jersey's case until they decide Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the consolidated AR-15 cases set for argument December 2. If the Court rules in a way New Jersey thinks helps its position, the state wants its case sent back to the lower courts for another round.

State of play: New Jersey lost on both fronts. The July 17 en banc Third Circuit ruling — 10 of 15 judges joining — held the state's semiautomatic rifle ban and its ban on magazines over ten rounds unconstitutional. The court rejected New Jersey's attempt to carve ordinary semiautomatic rifles out of Second Amendment protection and tossed the state's ten-round cutoff as a political line with no constitutional basis.

The bans are still in effect. The Third Circuit stayed its own mandate on August 4, so New Jersey residents remain subject to prohibitions a federal appeals court already ruled illegal while this plays out in Washington. The July judgment hasn't been vacated, and the Supreme Court hasn't granted anything yet or added magazine questions to what it's deciding in Viramontes and Grant.

The intrigue: Viramontes and Grant technically only concern rifle bans in Illinois and Connecticut. New Jersey's petition argues the ruling will matter for magazines anyway, because rifle and magazine cases raise "overlapping methodological questions" — what counts as a protected arm, how courts measure common use, and whether old laws can justify banning modern equipment. The Associated New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs made the same connection in its own amicus brief, just aiming for the opposite outcome: a ruling broad enough to also settle magazine litigation in gun owners' favor.

Both sides agree the December argument could reach well past the two states actually named in the case. They just disagree on which way it cuts.

What to watch: A narrow Supreme Court ruling limited strictly to rifles could leave magazine bans in legal limbo for years, forcing fresh litigation in every circuit. California's magazine-ban challengers in Duncan v. Bonta have already pushed for direct review rather than wait through another cycle of remands and petitions — a preview of what gun owners elsewhere may face if the Court doesn't write a rule broad and clear enough to close off the label-based workarounds states keep trying.

The bottom line: New Jersey secured delay, not victory. Its gun owners stay under bans a federal appeals court found unconstitutional, waiting on a Supreme Court decision that may or may not settle the magazine question at all.