Published December 20, 2013 at 6:35 AM ET · Updated July 20, 2026 at 10:07 AM ET
Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey's assault weapons and magazine ban
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.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down New Jersey's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The ruling covers AR-15 style rifles and commonly used magazines.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4595 d ago, when The Truth About Guns reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 16 hr ago from The Truth About Guns. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment's text covers the conduct, the government must justify a ban with a historical tradition of regulation. Caetano held the Amendment covers all bearable arms, including those not existing at the founding, so rifles cannot be excluded for being modern. The Court has not yet decided whether commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are protected.
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.
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
