Background
New Jersey enacted restrictions on firearms in 1990, criminalizing possession of “assault firearms” (defined as semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols meeting specified criteria) and large-capacity ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. In 2018, the state amended its magazine restrictions to lower the threshold to 10 rounds, giving residents 180 days to surrender, transfer, or modify their magazines. New Jersey provided narrow exemptions for military and law enforcement personnel, and allowed limited registration for certain pre-1990 firearms for target shooting.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)—which established a new historical-tradition test for Second Amendment cases—gun rights organizations and individual gun owners filed three separate lawsuits challenging both the assault firearm and large-capacity magazine provisions. The District Court found New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violated the Second Amendment but upheld the magazine restrictions. All parties appealed, leading to consolidation and en banc review in the Third Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit, applying the Bruen framework, held that New Jersey’s assault firearm ban violates the Second Amendment. The court determined that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of semi-automatic rifles for lawful self-defense within the home. Under Bruen’s second step, the court found that New Jersey failed to demonstrate the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court modified the District Court’s order to strike down the ban as applied to all semi-automatic rifles—not merely the Colt AR-15—because the record supported the same constitutional infirmity across the entire class of regulated weapons.
The court further reversed the District Court’s decision upholding New Jersey’s large-capacity magazine provisions. Relying on precedent establishing that magazines are “arms” under the Second Amendment (because they feed ammunition and enable firearms to function), the court applied the Bruen framework and concluded the state could not satisfy its burden of identifying a historical tradition justifying a 10-round maximum capacity. The court found that neither the “why” (restricting magazines to slow mass shooters) nor the “how” (imposing a numerical capacity limit) aligned sufficiently with historical firearm regulations to survive constitutional scrutiny. The court remanded for proceedings on remaining assault firearm models and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim.
Key Takeaways
- New Jersey cannot ban semi-automatic rifles or impose a 10-round magazine capacity limit under the Second Amendment; historical analysis, not legislative judgments about public safety, determines constitutionality under Bruen.
- Magazines qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment; restrictions on magazine capacity face the same historical-tradition scrutiny as restrictions on firearms themselves.
- The court expanded relief beyond the specific AR-15 model to encompass all semi-automatic rifles, finding the constitutional defect applies to the entire class.
- Under Bruen and its progeny (Rahimi, Wolford), courts must identify whether historical regulations share relevantly similar “why” and “how” with modern laws; general safety interests do not suffice without a historical analogue.
Why It Matters
This decision represents a significant expansion of Second Amendment protections under the post-Bruen jurisprudence. The Third Circuit’s holding that semi-automatic rifle bans and magazine capacity limits cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny signals that many state-level gun regulations will face renewed legal challenges. The court’s willingness to broaden the District Court’s ruling from a single firearm model to an entire class of weapons demonstrates aggressive application of the Bruen framework. With several other circuit courts and the Supreme Court addressing AR-15 bans in pending cases, this opinion establishes influential precedent on how historical analysis applies to modern weapons regulations.
The holding also extends constitutional protection to magazines themselves as distinct “arms,” potentially invalidating ammunition-regulation schemes that rely on capacity restrictions. The court’s en banc composition and multiple concurring and dissenting opinions reflect deep division over how rigidly to apply historical-tradition analysis, particularly when modern mass-shooting concerns arise. For states and municipalities seeking to regulate firearms through magazine restrictions, this decision forecloses one avenue of regulation without clear historical precedent for narrower alternatives.