Published July 17, 2026 at 5:34 PM ET · Updated July 18, 2026 at 12:05 AM ET
Appeals court strikes down New Jersey's AR-15 ban in landmark ruling
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
A federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's ban on AR-15 style firearms is unconstitutional. The court determined the state's assault weapons ban violated the Second Amendment.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 7 hr ago, when ABC News reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Fox News. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Caetano held the Second Amendment reaches all bearable arms, and a weapon is not unusual just because it postdates 1789 or serves warfare. Bruen then required governments to justify a ban by the Nation's historical tradition of regulation. Whether that test protects AR-15 style rifles is unsettled: the Court has granted cert on that exact question and not decided it.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
