Published July 22, 2026 at 10:29 AM ET · Updated July 22, 2026 at 1:03 PM ET
New Jersey attorney general sets date for assault-weapon ban hearing
1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
The New Jersey attorney general has set a hearing date for the state's assault-weapon ban. The hearing will address the ban.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen New Jersey must justify its assault-weapon ban by demonstrating consistency with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Caetano holds the Second Amendment extends to bearable arms not in existence at the founding, and a weapon is not unusual merely because it was uncommon in 1789. Whether such rifles are protected remains genuinely unsettled, as the Court has taken up the question but has not yet ruled.
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.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
