Published July 20, 2026 at 10:00 AM ET · Updated July 20, 2026 at 5:03 PM ET
Third Circuit says New Jersey bans on common rifles and magazines are unconstitutional
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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey's bans on commonly owned rifles and magazines are unconstitutional. The decision holds that the state's restrictions on these firearms and magazine accessories violate constitutional protections.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 18 hr ago, when Reason reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 18 hr ago from Reason. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen, once the Amendment's text covers a rifle or magazine, New Jersey must justify its ban with a historical tradition of comparable regulation rather than policy arguments. Caetano holds that arms in common use are protected and that unusual cannot mean merely not common in 1789. Whether AR-15-platform rifles are protected remains undecided by the Supreme 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.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
