New Jersey Answered a 10-5 Loss on Its AR-15 Ban With a 10-Page Petition Asking the Supreme Court to Wait
New Jersey’s Supreme Court petition doesn’t argue that the ruling against its rifle and magazine bans was wrong. It asks the justices to hold the case, which keeps both bans enforceable into 2027.
The New Jersey AR-15 ban is still being enforced 11 weeks after a federal appeals court ruled it unconstitutional, and on October 1 the state asked the Supreme Court to keep it that way. Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed a petition for review of the Third Circuit’s 10-5 decision striking down the state’s bans on semi-automatic rifles and on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The petition doesn’t ask the justices to take the case and decide it. It asks them to wait. And for New Jersey, the waiting is the point.
What New Jersey filed: The petition, captioned Davenport v. Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, presents two questions. The first is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments “prohibit restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles.” The second asks the same about “large capacity magazines.” The filing runs 303 pages, nearly all of it an appendix reprinting the rulings below. The petition itself is 10 pages.
Its request fits in two sentences. “This Court should hold both Questions pending its decision in Viramontes and Grant,” the state writes. “Then, if appropriate, this Court should grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remand this case for further consideration in light of its decision.”
Lawyers call that a GVR: grant, vacate, remand. It’s the Supreme Court’s way of telling a lower court to redo its work after the justices decide a related case. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins are the challenges to the Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut rifle bans that the Court will hear on December 2, which we previewed here.
What the petition leaves out: The section titled “Reasons for Granting the Petition” runs about three pages. It never argues that the Third Circuit got the Second Amendment wrong. It argues that the New Jersey case overlaps with Viramontes and Grant, and that the Court should therefore do nothing until those are decided. A state that just had a 36-year-old law struck down by 10 of 15 appellate judges is not asking the Supreme Court to say those judges erred. It’s asking for time.
The loss it’s answering: On July 17, the full Third Circuit ruled in an opinion by Judge Arianna Freeman that New Jersey’s ban violates the Second Amendment “with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles.” The trial court had struck the ban only as to the Colt AR-15. The appeals court widened that to every semi-automatic rifle the law covers, and we covered that ruling when it landed.
The court also reversed the trial judge on magazines and struck the 10-round limit. Its reasoning was blunt: “it cannot be that a magazine that can hold ten rounds is an ‘Arm[]’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment but a magazine that can hold eleven rounds is not.” The questions about the pistols and shotguns on New Jersey’s banned list went back to the trial court.
Want the next one the day it lands? Add CAT Outdoors as a preferred source on Google and our coverage shows up first.
Add on GoogleWhy waiting is winning: None of that has taken effect. On August 4, the Third Circuit granted the state’s request to freeze its own ruling. The order says the mandate “is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s disposition” of New Jersey’s petition. So the bans stay enforceable for exactly as long as the petition stays pending.
Now do the math on a hold. Viramontes and Grant get argued December 2, and the Court typically releases its argued decisions by the end of June. If the justices hold New Jersey’s petition until then, a law that an appeals court declared unconstitutional in July 2026 remains in force until at least the summer of 2027, and longer if the case gets sent back down for another round.
The petition says as much. Denying it before Viramontes is decided, the state writes, “would lead to a ‘flood of currently restricted weapons entering’ the State that are ‘near-impossible to retrieve once within the state.'” New Jersey’s stated worry is that its residents would buy the rifles and magazines a federal appeals court says they have a constitutional right to own.
Colt M4 Carbine LE6920 (5.56 NATO, 16.1-inch)
The trial court struck New Jersey's ban as to the Colt AR-15, and the Third Circuit extended that to every semi-automatic rifle. This is Colt's current M4-pattern carbine. It stays off-limits in New Jersey while the stay holds, so check your state's law before you order.
The same tool, pointed the other way: This case is older than most of the rifles in it. The petition’s own history section notes that the first lawsuit was filed in 2018, the day the 10-round limit was signed. The plaintiffs lost twice at the Third Circuit and petitioned the Supreme Court, which in 2022 granted, vacated, and remanded in light of Bruen. That GVR put the case on the road to July’s ruling.
Four years later, New Jersey wants the identical maneuver run in reverse. The gun owners used it to get a second look after the law changed in their favor. The state is asking for it in the hope the law changes back.
The fair objection: Nothing about this is irregular. Holding a petition while a related case is pending is standard practice, and the Court is already doing it. The dockets for Duncan v. Bonta, California’s magazine case (our coverage), Connecticut’s NAGR v. Lamont, and Washington’s Gator’s Custom Guns show no action by the Court since the June conferences. New Jersey will very likely get its hold. If the justices change the test in Viramontes, a redo below is the ordinary result.
That’s all true, and it’s why the brevity matters. New Jersey isn’t defending its law at the Supreme Court. It has tied the law’s fate to how Illinois and Connecticut fare in December. On magazines, the tie is looser than the petition lets on: the question the Court agreed to decide covers rifles, and the state can only say the ruling “is also likely to clarify” the standard for magazines. If the challengers win in Viramontes, there’s little reason to send anything back. The Court can simply deny the petition, and the stay ends with it.
The takeaway: For New Jersey gun owners, nothing changes today. The rifles the Third Circuit said you have a right to own are still banned, and so is any magazine over 10 rounds. The state’s petition is built to keep it that way through the middle of next year, and it will probably work. The decision that settles the New Jersey AR-15 ban will be written in a case New Jersey isn’t a party to.
What happens next: The petition had not appeared on the Supreme Court’s public docket as of this writing. Once it does, the gun owners who won below get 30 days to respond, and they can ask the Court to deny it outright. After that, the date that matters is December 2.
Should the Supreme Court hold New Jersey’s case, or deny it and let the Third Circuit’s ruling take effect? Tell us in the comments.
If you live somewhere the rifle is still legal, our Best AR-15s guide is the place to start. Sign up for the newsletter below and we’ll send the December 2 argument recap the day it happens.
Sources: Petition for a writ of certiorari, Davenport v. ANJRPC (filed Oct. 1, 2026); Third Circuit en banc opinion, Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450, 24-2506 (July 17, 2026); Third Circuit order staying the mandate (Aug. 4, 2026); Supreme Court dockets 25-238 (Viramontes), 25-198 (Duncan), 25-421 (NAGR), and 25-153 (Gator’s Custom Guns).
Justin Trump is the managing editor and owner of CAT Outdoors. The son of a Vietnam veteran, he’s a Certified Glock Armorer, an avid gun enthusiast and 2A advocate. He holds two firearm patents for the CAT M4 and Talon tools. When not managing CAT Outdoors, he enjoys spending time with his family and friends, rooting for Michigan sports teams, and serving his church.
