Published July 23, 2026 at 9:31 AM ET · Updated July 23, 2026 at 10:46 AM ET
New Jersey attorney general walks back timeline for ending gun and magazine ban
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 revised the previously stated timeline for ending the state's gun and magazine ban. The adjustment delays or changes expectations for when the restrictions would be lifted.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 2 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 2 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
District of Columbia v. Heller held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms and that a blanket ban on a category of firearms violates that right. Bruen requires every firearm regulation to be justified by the Nation's historical tradition. New Jersey's delay in ending the magazine ban reflects the burden Bruen places on the state to show historical support, not any settled authority to keep such a ban in place.
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.
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
