Justice Thomas concluded with the following in relevant part: ATF responds that a shooter is less physically involved with operating a bump-stock equipped rifle than operating the Model 37. It explains that once a shooter pulls the rifle’s trigger a single time, the...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it would not do so “automatically.” Section 5845(b) specifies the precise action that must...
Justice Thomas continued in relevant part: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1)...
On June 14, 2024, The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Garland v. Cargill. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the ATF could classify a bump stock as a machine gun, thereby making bump stocks illegal. Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3...
On May 30, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Hudson County case of State v. M.F.L. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-8 concerned whether the framework for Domestic Violence Restraining Orders can apply to motions to modify Sex Offender Restraining...
On June 3, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Jeffrey Walker. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2 concerned whether a restitution order can be extinguished when victims cannot be located. Judge Chase wrote for the...
The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: Miller and Zuber are intended to afford juveniles an opportunity for rehabilitation and ultimate release from incarceration. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 479, (finding that "children's heightened...
On May 31, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Sean Jones. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9 concerned whether offenders between the ages of eighteen and twenty when offenses were committed are entitled to the...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The proper analysis for determining whether the State can obtain this physical evidence rests within the principles of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment...
On March 5, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Camden County case of State v. Shlawrence Ross. The principal issue concerned the propriety of the issuance of a warrant to search a hospital for a bullet that was removed from the defendant during surgery....