The Association for New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs on Wednesday filed a petition for en banc rehearing in ANJRPC v. AG, in which the Third Circuit denied the group’s Second Amendment challenge to New Jersey’s law limiting gun magazines to 10 bullets. The group posted its petition online, link here.
The petition asserts five grounds for rehearing, including that the Court should adopt “eschew tiers of scrutiny” and adopt in its place “[a]n approach based on text, history, and tradition.”
It unloads on the panel-majority opinion with a barrage of sinister verbs: “refused,” “disregarded,” “directly contravenes,” “avoided that conclusion by grafting a new requirement,” “arrogated to itself,” “allowed the suppression of a fundamental right ‘for mere convenience,'” “invented,” “manufactured,” “proceeded to shift the burden of proof,” “made factual assertions that are dubious, irrelevant, or based on flawed empirical methodologies,” “ignoring almost all contrary evidence and counterargument,” “never even analyzed,” “refusing to hold the State to its burden of proof,” “flipped the burden,” and “created a circuit split without even trying to justify doing so.” This is a frankly bewildering approach to seeking a majority for Third Circuit en banc rehearing.
In the weeks since it issued, the panel-majority opinion in this case has been targeted for extraordinary criticism on pro-gun websites and conservative news outlets. A few examples:
- here (graphic: “IN THE 1770S, THE BRITISH DEMANDED WE HAND OVER OUR WEAPONS. WE SHOT THEM.”),
- here (graphic: “I WILL NOT COMPLY”), and
- here (headline: “Venezuela Banned Gun Ownership Before Country’s Collapse”)
As I observed on Twitter, I don’t remember ever seeing a circuit case in which the public criticism focused so heavily on identifying the majority and dissenting judges by name and by the president who had nominated them, and I find it scary as hell.
The petitioner’s announcement states that, “If the court declines en banc review, ANJRPC is prepared to eventually seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court.”