New Jersey’s “Assault Weapons” and High-Capacity Magazine Bans Overturned

Introduction

On July 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit delivered a historic ruling in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General (and consolidated cases). In a 10-5 en banc decision, the court declared New Jersey’s decades-old ban on so-called “assault weapons”—including popular semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15—and its prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. 

This marks the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a state-level assault weapons ban. The decision builds directly on the Supreme Court’s framework in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and especially New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires gun regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 

For New Jersey gun owners, this ruling represents a significant restoration of rights after over 30 years of restrictive laws. However, implementation remains in flux as the state is expected to seek a stay pending further appeals, potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is already slated to hear related challenges to similar bans in other states. 

Background: New Jersey’s Long-Standing Gun Control Measures

New Jersey enacted its Assault Firearms Law in 1990, one of the nation’s earliest and strictest “assault weapons” bans. The law criminalized possession, manufacture, and sale of a list of specific semiautomatic firearms, as well as those with certain features like pistol grips, folding stocks, or the ability to accept detachable magazines. It broadly targeted semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols deemed “assault firearms.” 

In 2018, following the Parkland shooting, Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation further restricting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, with limited exceptions for law enforcement. Violations carried criminal penalties, making New Jersey one of the most restrictive states for law-abiding gun owners. 

Proponents argued these measures were essential for public safety, citing mass shootings and the purported “military-style” nature of the banned firearms. Critics, including plaintiffs in the case, contended that the laws were a form of collective punishment on responsible citizens, mischaracterizing common sporting and defensive arms as “assault weapons”—a term they viewed as politically loaded and imprecise. 

These restrictions persisted despite evidence that such firearms are in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting. The AR-15 platform, in particular, is among the most popular rifles in America, owned by millions. 

The Legal Challenge and Path to Victory

The case originated from lawsuits filed by groups like the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), Mark Cheeseman, Timothy Connelly, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Plaintiffs challenged the bans as violating the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. 

In 2024, U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued a mixed ruling: he struck down the ban on Colt AR-15 rifles for home self-defense but upheld the magazine capacity limit. The state appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The case was fast-tracked to the full Third Circuit en banc, with oral arguments in October 2025. 

Supplemental briefing in June-July 2026 addressed the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions like Wolford v. Lopez and others, reinforcing the “common use” doctrine. The Trump DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. 

On July 17, 2026, the Third Circuit expanded the lower court’s ruling. By a 10-5 vote, it held that New Jersey’s bans on semiautomatic “assault” rifles (not just AR-15s) and large-capacity magazines both fail constitutional scrutiny. The court directed further proceedings on other covered firearms like certain pistols and shotguns. 

Judge Arianna Freeman and the majority emphasized that broad prohibitions on arms in common use for lawful purposes lack historical analogues in America’s tradition of firearm regulation. 

Key Legal Reasoning: Bruen, Common Use, and Historical Tradition

The decision rests on the Bruen test: courts must assess whether a modern regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. The majority found no sufficient historical parallels for banning an entire class of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms or standard-capacity magazines. 

Semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. They are owned by millions, used lawfully for self-defense and other purposes, and not “dangerous and unusual” in the constitutional sense. Dissenters argued states retain authority to regulate “dangerous” weapons, but the majority rejected this as incompatible with Supreme Court precedent. 

The ruling aligns with evolving post-Bruen jurisprudence, including influences from Wolford and Hemani, which clarified that plaintiffs need not prove common use upfront for the right to attach. 

This stands in contrast to some other circuits that have upheld similar bans, highlighting a circuit split likely destined for Supreme Court resolution. 

Implications for Gun Owners and Public Safety

For New Jersey residents, the decision could restore access to previously banned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, enhancing self-defense options, especially in the home. It affirms that the Second Amendment protects arms chosen by the people, not just those favored by legislators. 

Public safety concerns were central to the state’s defense. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the ruling as “unfortunate” and “legally incorrect,” arguing the bans addressed mass shooting risks. However, the court prioritized constitutional text and history over policy preferences. 

Data on “assault weapons” in crime remains debated; most violent gun crime involves handguns, not the banned rifles. Law-abiding owners, not criminals, bore the brunt of compliance. The ruling shifts focus to enforcement against prohibited persons rather than broad feature bans. 

Enforcement is paused pending stay motions. Gun owners should monitor updates and comply with existing laws until the mandate issues. 

Reactions

Gun rights organizations celebrated the decision as a long-overdue correction. ANJRPC and FPC hailed it as vindicating the rights of over a million New Jersey gun owners. 

Second Amendment advocates nationwide viewed it as a blueprint for challenging similar laws in states like California, New York, and Illinois. It bolsters momentum ahead of Supreme Court review of other assault weapons cases. 

Opponents, including gun control groups and Democratic officials, decried it as endangering communities. They pledged continued legal and legislative fights. 

Broader Context in the Second Amendment Landscape

This ruling fits a post-Bruen trend of courts scrutinizing gun laws more rigorously. It contrasts with earlier decisions upholding bans and underscores the impact of recent Supreme Court guidance. With SCOTUS poised to hear related cases, New Jersey’s loss could accelerate nationwide reevaluation of “assault weapon” and magazine restrictions. 

New Jersey’s strict regime exemplified “may-issue” and feature-based restrictions that Bruen and successors have eroded. The decision reinforces that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.”

What Comes Next: Appeals, Implementation, and Potential Legislative Responses

New Jersey is likely to request a stay and may petition for rehearing or Supreme Court review. Plaintiffs will oppose delays. Until resolved, the status quo may persist in practice. 

Legislatively, bills like one introduced in 2026 to remove magazine limits signal possible accommodations, though broader repeal faces hurdles in the Democrat-controlled legislature. 

Gun owners should consult attorneys, stay informed via groups like ANJRPC, and exercise rights responsibly. Training and safe storage remain paramount.

Conclusion: Restoring Constitutional Balance

The Third Circuit’s decision overturning New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazine bans is a triumph for originalist jurisprudence and individual liberty. It reaffirms that the Second Amendment protects commonly used arms for self-defense, rejecting the notion that popular firearms can be banned based on modern policy concerns alone. 

While legal battles continue, this ruling empowers law-abiding citizens and sets a precedent that could ripple across the country. It underscores a core truth: the Constitution’s protections endure, even against decades of incremental erosion. As courts continue applying Bruen’s history-and-tradition test, the right to keep and bear arms grows stronger for future generations.