New Jersey Gun Rights Activists Find Support in Sotomayor's Dissent

Gun rights activists challenging New Jersey's firearms laws may have gained unexpected backing from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent dissent in a key case involving bump stocks, as they seek to overturn the state's restrictive measures on semi-automatic rifles.

In the dissenting opinion for the 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill on June 14, Justice Sotomayor referenced the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where the perpetrator used firearms equipped with bump stocks to unleash rapid gunfire on a crowd. Describing the incident, she highlighted the use of "commonly available, semiautomatic rifles" modified with bump stocks.

Attorney Daniel Schmutter, representing plaintiffs in federal lawsuits challenging New Jersey's assault weapons ban, cited Sotomayor's use of "commonly available" as echoing the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed the individual right to possess firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. Schmutter argued that this alignment strengthens the plaintiffs' case against the state's ban on certain semi-automatic firearms.

The lawsuits aim to strike down New Jersey's laws categorizing specific semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons," restrictions which gun rights advocates contend violate the Second Amendment's protections. Deputy New Jersey Attorney General Christopher Ioannou responded by disputing the applicability of "common availability" as a decisive factor under the Second Amendment, asserting that Sotomayor's dissent does not endorse such a test.

The outcome of these legal challenges will depend on how courts interpret the implications of Sotomayor's dissenting remarks within the broader framework of Second Amendment jurisprudence and their impact on existing firearm regulations in New Jersey.