New Jersey’s assault firearms ban just took a serious hit. On July 17 the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled 10-5 that the state’s prohibition on a broad class of semiautomatic rifles and its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds both violate the Second Amendment.
This is the first time a federal appellate court has struck down a state-level “assault weapons” ban on Second Amendment grounds. The majority opinion came from Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee. That detail alone has people talking.
The case, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General (consolidated with related challenges brought by individual gun owners), had been grinding through the courts for years. A district judge had earlier split the baby—finding the ban unconstitutional as applied to the Colt AR-15 but upholding the magazine limit. The full Third Circuit went further. It wiped out the ban as it applies to the entire class of semiautomatic rifles covered by New Jersey law and struck the magazine restriction outright.
Common Use Wins
The court applied the framework set by Heller and Bruen. Once a weapon is shown to be in common use for lawful purposes, broad bans lack historical support. The majority noted the lower court’s finding that roughly 24 million AR-15-style rifles are already in circulation nationwide. Those rifles are used for self-defense, target shooting, hunting, and pest control. Their design features—manageable recoil, ergonomics, accuracy—make them practical tools, not some exotic battlefield exclusive.
Magazines got the same treatment. Because they are necessary to operate many firearms, they count as “Arms” under the Second Amendment. New Jersey’s ten-round ceiling, lowered from fifteen in 2018, did not survive.
Judge Paul Matey, in a concurrence, was more pointed about New Jersey’s track record. He called the state’s repeated efforts a “relentless assault on the Second Amendment” and said officials kept prioritizing “histrionics over history.” The dissent, led by Judge Patty Shwartz, argued that states should retain authority to regulate weapons they view as unusually dangerous. The majority rejected that framing.
What Happens Next in New Jersey
Attorney General Jennifer Davenport called the decision “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect” and said her office is evaluating options. That could mean seeking rehearing or asking the Supreme Court to step in. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure the mandate is expected to issue in early August, at which point the bans become unenforceable unless stayed.
Democratic leaders in Trenton are already talking about workarounds. Governor Mikie Sherrill said she intends to keep testing the courts because “we should be held up as a model.” Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald is pushing a long-stalled safe-storage bill that would require guns to be locked and unloaded inside the home. Some lawmakers still want to try new feature-based restrictions or permitting schemes. Republicans in the legislature are telling them to stop throwing bills at the wall just to see what sticks.
One practical note for New Jersey owners: the old ban never completely banned AR-pattern rifles. Manufacturers simply built “compliant” versions with fixed stocks, different muzzle devices, and no bayonet lugs. Those guns were already legal to buy with a background check. The court decision removes the feature restrictions and the magazine limit for the broader class of semiautomatic rifles. It does not suddenly turn the state into a free-for-all.
Bigger Picture
Delaware sits in the same circuit. Its 2022 assault weapons ban is now on shaky ground, and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban is affected too. Other circuits have upheld similar laws, so a clear split exists. That split arrives at a useful time. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear challenges to the Connecticut statewide ban and Cook County, Illinois ordinance. Oral arguments are expected this fall, with a decision likely by June 2027. The Third Circuit’s detailed application of the common-use test and historical tradition analysis gives the challengers additional ammunition.
Gun-rights groups treated the ruling as a major benchmark. The NRA, which backed the litigation, called it a historic victory that protects commonly owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines. Firearms Policy Coalition and others involved in parallel cases also welcomed the outcome.
For people who actually own and use these rifles, the decision is straightforward. A popular class of firearms used by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes cannot be banned simply because politicians dislike their appearance or want to claim they are “weapons of war.” The Third Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s instructions instead of inventing a new public-safety exception. That is how the system is supposed to work.
