Published July 17, 2026 at 4:31 PM ET · Updated July 20, 2026 at 12:10 PM ET
Third Circuit says New Jersey bans on common rifles and magazines are unconstitutional
3 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.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey's bans on commonly owned rifles and magazines are unconstitutional. The court struck down the state's AR-15 and large-capacity magazine bans in a Second Amendment decision.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 d ago, when The Reload reported it. Coverage has since grown to 3 independent outlets. The most recent report came 15 hr ago from Reason. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen, conduct covered by the Second Amendment's plain text is presumptively protected, and the government must show its regulation matches the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Caetano held the amendment reaches all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding. Whether that covers common rifles and magazines is pending at the Supreme Court, so it remains unsettled there.
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
