Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey's AR-15 and Magazine Ban, 10-5

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 10-5 on Friday, July 17, that New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 and magazines holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment, according to Courthouse News Service.

The 192-page ruling in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. New Jersey Attorney General ends a law New Jersey has enforced for decades. It also arrives, according to GunsAmerica, just months before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two separate challenges to "assault weapon" bans out of Connecticut and Illinois.

What the Court Held

Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, applied the two-part test from the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun restrictions to fit within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Freeman found New Jersey's ban fails that test. "This case implicates the societal concern of people misusing weapons to harm or menace others," she wrote, according to Courthouse News. "That concern has persisted since the 18th century, and the Founders themselves could have adopted a similar law to confront that problem, but they did not."

She went further than the district court below, which had limited its earlier ruling to the Colt-brand AR-15 specifically. The full circuit extended constitutional protection to the entire class of semiautomatic rifles covered by New Jersey's ban, according to Right To Bear's summary of the opinion.

The ruling also broke new ground on magazines. The Third Circuit became the first federal appeals court to explicitly rule that detachable magazines are themselves protected "arms," not mere accessories, according to GunsAmerica. "Because magazines are required to operate many firearms, they are 'Arms' within the text of the Second Amendment," the court wrote, adding that magazines over 10 rounds are "presumptively entitled to constitutional protection."

According to the opinion, at least 24 million AR-15-style rifles are in circulation in the U.S.; the National Shooting Sports Foundation says that figure has since grown past 32 million. Lawrence Keane, NSSF's senior vice president and general counsel, called the ruling a vindication: "The MSR is a commonly used firearm that is protected for legal sale and lawful ownership under the Second Amendment."

The Coalition Behind the Majority

The 10-judge majority crossed ideological lines in a way that's unusual for a case this politically charged. Joining Freeman were Judges Michael Chagares and Thomas Hardiman, both George W. Bush appointees; Stephanos Bibas, David Porter, Emil Bove, Jennifer Mascott and Peter Phipps, all Trump appointees; Paul Matey, also a Trump appointee; and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, a Biden appointee, according to Courthouse News.

Matey wrote separately in concurrence that the ruling "returns the Second Amendment to its appropriate place in our constitutional design," adding it should "end the anxiety imposed over millions of New Jerseyans who have been unable to enjoy their natural liberties without wondering what new turn of phrase will descend from Trenton to take away their freedom."

The Dissent's Actual Argument

The strongest case against this ruling comes from the dissent itself. Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee, argued AR-15s and similar rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection entirely because of their "disproportionate criminal use, military history, and combat-oriented features."

"The AR-15's history, features and uses indicate it is an unusually dangerous tool used by the military and not an arm in common use by civilians for self-defense. As such, AR-15s are not arms that the Second Amendment protects, and the state may ban them," Shwartz wrote, according to Courthouse News.

Shwartz also pushed back on the majority's reliance on the rifle's popularity, arguing the Bruen framework requires courts to look at historical tradition, not modern sales figures, when deciding whether a weapon is "dangerous and unusual" and therefore bannable.

That's a real legal dispute, not a fringe position. It's the same argument New Jersey and other blue states have used for years to defend these bans, and five judges on this court, across multiple appointing presidents, found it persuasive enough to dissent. Whether the Supreme Court agrees is now the central question.

Slate's Read, and Why It Matters

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote on July 24 that the ruling hands the Supreme Court's conservative majority "cover" to strike down assault weapons bans nationally, precisely because it was written by a Democratic appointee, according to Breitbart News's coverage of the column. Their argument: a conservative-majority court gutting these laws looks partisan, but if a Biden appointee like Freeman already went there first, the justices can point to her opinion as proof this isn't just conservatives imposing their will.

Lithwick and Stern also flagged what they see as an inconsistency, questioning why the same court system has found no constitutional right to medication abortion but might find one for assault weapons. That's a fair rhetorical jab about how constitutional rights get defined, though it doesn't address the specific textual and historical analysis Freeman applied under Bruen, which is a different legal framework than the one governing abortion cases.

What Happens Next

New Jersey has not yet announced whether it will seek en banc rehearing again, since this ruling already came from the full circuit sitting en banc, or petition the Supreme Court directly. The more immediate flashpoint is the Supreme Court's already-scheduled docket: justices are set to hear challenges to Connecticut and Illinois assault weapons bans, and the Third Circuit's reasoning, especially its holding on magazines, will now be part of the record the justices have to grapple with.