Published July 21, 2026 at 11:53 PM ET · Updated July 22, 2026 at 10:07 AM ET
Gun-control publication sees Third Circuit ruling as warning sign for assault weapon bans
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
Gun-control publication The Trace warns that a Third Circuit ruling signals potential trouble for assault weapon bans. In a separate case, the First Circuit upheld Massachusetts' assault weapons ban.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 11 hr ago, when The Reload reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen a government must justify a weapon ban through historical firearm tradition, not means-end balancing. Caetano held the amendment covers arms not existing at the founding, so unusual cannot mean merely not in common use in 1789. Heller said the right is not unlimited and longstanding prohibitions stay presumptively lawful. Whether AR-15 rifles are arms in common use is unsettled and now before the Court.
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.
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.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited: the Court noted that longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sale) remain presumptively lawful. D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
