A federal appeals court ruled Friday that New Jersey's decades-old bans on so-called assault firearms and magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment, delivering a 10-5 decision that dismantles two of the most aggressive gun-control measures on the East Coast and sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that New Jersey failed to justify its restrictions under the historical-analogue test the Supreme Court established for evaluating firearms regulations. The state pointed to colonial-era gunpowder storage laws and Bowie knife bans enacted in Western territories. The court was unpersuaded.
U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee who authored the majority opinion, wrote bluntly about the magazine restrictions:
"The text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not just magazines that New Jersey considers 'standard capacity.'"
That line alone captures the majority's reasoning. New Jersey enacted its restrictions in 1990, defining a category of weapons it labeled "assault firearms", a definition covering AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles, and capping magazine capacity. For thirty-six years, the state treated those restrictions as settled law. Friday's ruling says they never squared with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority previously expanded Second Amendment protections by requiring states to identify historical analogues, regulations from the Founding era or the nineteenth century, that are "relevantly similar" to modern gun-control laws. If a state cannot produce convincing parallels, the restriction fails.
New Jersey tried. The state cited gunpowder storage regulations and laws restricting Bowie knives, slungshots, clubs, pistols, and revolvers. Judge Freeman dismantled each comparison. Even setting aside questions about the timing of those regulations, she wrote, "none of those regulations are relevantly similar to the Assault Firearm Provisions."
The gap between colonial gunpowder rules and a blanket ban on an entire class of modern rifles was simply too wide for the majority to bridge. The court's logic tracked the framework the Supreme Court laid down: if the historical parallel doesn't hold, the law doesn't stand.
A lower federal district court had previously issued a mixed ruling on the same restrictions, striking down the ban on AR-15s specifically but leaving intact the prohibitions on other semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. The Third Circuit went further, invalidating the restrictions entirely.
Five judges dissented, led by U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee. The dissenters argued that AR-15s and similar weapons are not "arms" entitled to Second Amendment protection at all. Shwartz framed the rifle as a tool of war, not civilian self-defense:
"In sum, 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."
That position has a problem. The AR-15 platform is, by virtually every measure of market data and ownership, among the most commonly owned rifles in the United States. Calling it "not in common use by civilians" requires ignoring the millions of Americans who already own one. The majority clearly found that argument unpersuasive, and doubled the dissent's vote count.
The ruling also reflects the shifting composition of the Third Circuit. Judges Emil Bove and Jennifer Mascott, both second-term Trump appointees, voted with the majority to strike down the bans. Their presence on the bench helped cement the 10-5 margin. Other federal courts have recently followed a similar trajectory, applying the Supreme Court's historical framework to dismantle state-level gun restrictions that had gone unchallenged for years.
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat, called the decision "as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect." She insisted that every other federal circuit court to consider similar bans had ruled the other way:
"Today's decision from the Third Circuit invalidating New Jersey's careful laws restricting the AR-15 and large capacity magazines is as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect. Every other federal circuit court to consider the issue has come out the other way."
Davenport also argued that "assault weapons and large capacity magazines play a dangerous role in the modern epidemic of mass shootings, and New Jersey acted reasonably and lawfully in restricting them."
Her statement, however, underscores a legal reality that cuts against her position. If the Third Circuit is now the outlier among circuits, one court applying the Constitution's text and historical record to reach a different result, that is precisely the kind of circuit split the Supreme Court exists to resolve.
And the high court appears ready to do exactly that. The Supreme Court is preparing to hear challenges to similar measures in Connecticut and the Chicago area next term, with a decision expected by next summer. The Third Circuit's ruling adds significant weight to the challengers' side of that argument.
The NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition, which brought the legal challenges in New Jersey, celebrated the decision. John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, called it "a historic victory for the NRA, the Second Amendment, and law-abiding Americans."
Friday's ruling is not an isolated event. It fits into a broader pattern of courts and enforcement officials rejecting state-level firearms restrictions that were enacted with little regard for constitutional limits.
The Trump Department of Justice has actively challenged similar bans in other blue states. The DOJ filed suit against Colorado's ban on standard-capacity magazines, arguing the restriction cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.
In California, the administration moved even faster. The DOJ sued to block the state's Glock ban on the very day it took effect, signaling that the federal government would not wait for years of litigation before acting.
Meanwhile, Virginia prosecutors have refused to enforce a semiautomatic firearms ban signed by the state's Democratic governor, citing the Constitution. And the Supreme Court itself unanimously struck down a federal ban on gun possession for marijuana users earlier this year, in a decision that cut across ideological lines and reinforced the principle that the Second Amendment means what it says.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the legal infrastructure supporting state-level gun bans is eroding rapidly. Laws enacted in the 1990s and 2000s, passed during a political era when courts largely deferred to legislatures on firearms policy, are now being measured against a constitutional standard many of them cannot meet.
The immediate question is whether New Jersey will seek further review. Davenport's statement characterized the ruling as incorrect but stopped short of announcing a specific legal strategy. The state could petition for rehearing en banc, though the Third Circuit already heard this case with its full complement of active judges, or ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
Given that the Supreme Court is already set to hear similar cases next term, any petition from New Jersey would land on a docket that is already pointed in the challengers' direction. The high court's recent unanimous ruling striking down a federal gun ban suggests little appetite for the kind of deference that sustained these laws for decades.
For New Jersey gun owners, the ruling means the state's thirty-six-year-old restrictions on AR-15s and magazines over ten rounds have been declared unconstitutional by the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over the state. The practical effect will depend on whether the ruling is stayed pending further appeal.
For the broader Second Amendment landscape, the decision is a clear signal. The historical-analogue test is not a rubber stamp for existing gun laws. It is a filter, and laws built on policy preferences rather than constitutional foundations are failing to pass through it.
New Jersey spent thirty-six years telling law-abiding citizens they couldn't own some of the most popular firearms in America. It took the Constitution about thirty-six pages to explain why the state was wrong.
