New Jersey suppressor ban lawsuit paused over stay request

Key points: New Jersey suppressor ban

• Padua challenges New Jersey's total ban on buying and owning suppressors, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, ANJRPC, the American Suppressor Association and the NRA.
• The plaintiffs argue suppressors are protected arms, or integral to using protected firearms, and that no historical tradition supports an outright ban; New Jersey argues they are not protected arms.
• Discovery was complete and the plaintiffs had filed for summary judgment when New Jersey asked to pause the case until the Supreme Court rules in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
• The plaintiffs counter that Heller, Bruen, Wolford and Hemani already bind lower courts, and that the Third Circuit decided New Jersey's rifle ban case without waiting for the Supreme Court.
• The judge granted New Jersey leave to file a formal stay motion, not the stay itself, and paused summary judgment deadlines until that motion is decided.
• The Supreme Court cases concern rifle and magazine bans, not suppressors, but guidance on what counts as an arm, common use and historical method could shape the suppressor fight; arguments are set for early December.

About this Drama and Gripe video

New Jersey suppressor ban lawsuit update from Armed Scholar: in Padua, the challenge to the state's total ban on buying and owning suppressors, New Jersey wants the case stayed until the Supreme Court decides the AR-15 ban cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The court let the state file a stay motion and paused summary judgment briefing in the meantime.

Transcript: New Jersey suppressor