Landmark Decision: Federal Appeals Court Rejects New Jersey’s AR-15 And Magazine Bans

In a major victory those seeking to rid America of bans on so-called “assault weapons,” for the first time ever, a federal appeals court has ruled that a state’s ban on AR-15s and similar rifles, and its ban on “high-capacity” magazines, violate the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

The bans in question had been enacted by New Jersey, but the ruling carries weight throughout the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which also includes Pennsylvania and Delaware. More significantly, the Third Circuit ruling creates a direct circuit split — the term used to describe a situation where two or more federal courts hand down different interpretations of the same legal controversy, which results in litigants in different parts of the country experiencing sharply different outcomes. Circuit splits are one of the key factors that make an issue ripe for US Supreme Court review.

Late last month, the Supreme Court already agreed to hear an appeal of rulings that upheld a “assault rifle” ban imposed by Connecticut and by Cook County — where Chicago is situated. The question posed to the high court by the petitioners: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.” 

Comically flaunting his supposed credentials on the issue by noting that he “qualified as an expert shot” in the Navy and is thus “familiar with firearms,” New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill condemned the ruling in a statement: 

“Today’s decision is dangerous, wrong, and make no mistake, it will make New Jersey communities less safe…This decision is not only legally wrong, it’s completely out of step with parents and the people of the Garden State…We will not back down from extreme, right-wing attempts to weaken the laws of New Jersey.”

The Third Circuit Court reviewed the case en banc — that is, all active judges of the circuit participated in hearing and deciding the case.  They threw out the New Jersey rifle and magazine bans by a 10-to-5 margin. A majority of the Third Circuit judges were appointed by Republicans, but the majority opinion was written by a Biden-appointed judge, Arianna Freeman. As required by the landmark 2022 Bruen decision, the Third Circuit and all other federal courts are required to evaluate whether a given restriction on the right of armed self-defense is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. 

Freeman and her fellow judges in the majority flatly rejected the notion, embraced by other circuits, that AR-15 rifles are not “arms” as the term is used in the Second Amendment: 

“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.”

The majority decision also rejected the ban over the “common use” standard that was created by the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision: 

“Bans on weapons in common use for lawful purposes are unlawful. So are severe restrictions on weapons in common use for lawful purposes .. However much nuance we might employ, we could not overcome the dearth of relevantly similar Founding-era restrictions. “

They also found no historical roots with which to justify the ban on AR-15 and similar rifles: 

“Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. That is so even when the regulations are passed with the intention of reducing gun violence .. That principle resolves our inquiry here.

In the primary dissenting opinion, Biden appointee Patty Shwartz said “the objective features of AR-15s and [large-capacity magazines] render them disproportionate to ‘ordinary self-defense needs’ and thus outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection.”