I was traveling yesterday, so couldn’t get to the really big news that broke. That, of course, was the Third District Court of Appeals’ en banc 10-5 ruling that New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazine bans are unconstitutional.
You may yawn and say, ‘What’s the BFD? The Supreme Court already granted cert on two hardware cases.” True enough, but until yesterday, every other Court of Appeals to rule on “assault weapons” bans had upheld them. That was a point of pride for the gun control industry and their enablers in the media.
No longer. Yesterday’s ruling, which consolidated three cases, creates a circuit court split. And the wording of the ruling — written by Biden-appointed Judge Arianna Freeman — establishes that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are not only arms under the Second Amendment (other courts had ruled that they aren’t “arms” because they’re somehow dangerous and unusual) but are in common use for lawful purposes. That qualifies them as protected under both Heller and Bruen.
As Judge Freeman wrote . . .
Even the narrowest Founding-era definition of “Arms” addressed by the Heller Court “stated that all firearms constituted ‘arms.’” Because semi-automatic rifles are firearms, they are “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution thus “presumptively protects” individuals’ right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.
Freeman’s opinion also makes clear that self-defense isn’t the only valid reason for owning semi-auto rifles.
[S]elf-defense is one lawful purpose relevant to the common-use inquiry, but it is not the only one. While self-defense is “central” to the Second Amendment, other lawful purposes also bring a commonly used weapon within the ambit of the Second Amendment. After all, Founding-era Americans commonly used weapons for hunting in addition to self-defense. See id. at 599 (noting that most Founding-era Americans “undoubtedly thought [the Second Amendment right] even more important for self-defense and hunting” than for securing the citizen militia). So weapons commonly used for hunting fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Whatever the purpose of using a given arm, the lawfulness of that purpose is a necessary condition of Second Amendment coverage.
And there’s no doubt that uses like self-defense, hunting, competition, varmint control and just plain shooting for fun are lawful purposes that protect semi-automatic rifles under the 2A.
As for magazines, however many rounds they may hold. The state can’t draw some sort of arbitrary line above which one more cartridge makes you a felon . . .
The text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not just magazines that New Jersey considers “standard capacity.” Standard capacity magazines and LCMs are subsets of the broader category of “magazines,” separate categories of arms. The determination that magazines are arms, then, necessarily means that LCMs are arms as well.
New Jersey’s use of the term “large capacity magazine” further supports this conclusion. The LCM label is not objective: what is considered an LCM is statutorily defined. In New Jersey, that definition has changed over time. Today, a magazine capable of holding 15 rounds of ammunition is an LCM. But until 2018, that same magazine was not an LCM. It would defy reason for a label devised by New Jersey’s legislature to govern the reach of the Second Amendment’s text.
And here’s one that’s worth printing and putting up on your refrigerator . . .
The State reasons that firearms can operate with smaller capacity magazines. But the text of the Second Amendment does not limit “Arms” to the minimum equipment necessary to operate a weapon. And nowhere in Heller or Bruen’s textual analyses did the Supreme Court suggest that the availability of alternative equipment changes the definition of an arm under the Second Amendment.
We could go on, but you get the idea. You can read the full ruling here.
If there’s a negative, it’s the the ruling excludes certain semi-auto pistols and shotguns that New Jersey’s ban also prohibits. The Appeals Court does, however, instruct lower courts to apply the Appeals Court’s ruling here in those cases. We won’t hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
As the Second Amendment Foundation
“Today’s Third Circuit decision striking down New Jersey’s so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban
confirms arguments in SAF’s two cases before the Supreme Court – Viramontes v. Cook County
and Grant v. Higgins are valid and well-reasoned,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.
“The Supreme Court’s recent decision Wolford v. Lopez, where he Court further clarified what
constitutes an ‘arm’ for Second Amendment purposes, has already laid the groundwork for
resolving these cases favorably and was adopted by the Third Circuit. We are optimistic today’s
ruling will further bolster a favorable result once we have the opportunity to argue the cases
before the Court this fall.”
As for the NSSF . . .
“Today’s ruling by the Third Circuit vindicates what NSSF has argued for decades. The MSR is a commonly used firearm that is protected for legal sale and lawful ownership under the Second Amendment. Additionally, standard-capacity magazines are ‘arms’ that are also protected by the Second Amendment,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court just agreed to hear two appeals in its next session to determine definitively whether laws banning MSRs violate the Second Amendment.
Meanwhile, the powers that be in New Jersey aren’t taking this well.
It will never not be funny that this “extreme, right-wing attempt to weaken the laws of New Jersey” was written by a Biden appointee and joined by other Democrat-appointed judges on the court.
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) July 18, 2026
Glorious.
“If there’s a negative, it’s the the ruling excludes certain semi-auto pistols and shotguns . . .”
As the status of those arms was not ‘included’ in the case before the 3rd Circuit–just rifles–they could not be ‘excluded’ from the ruling. A semantic difference perhaps, but a legally important one.