From Prohibited to Protected: The Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s Rifle and Magazine Restrictions
August 7, 2026 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
UPDATE: New Jersey moved to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Third Circuit granted the stay. As a result, the mandate has not issued, and the July 17 decision is not presently effective in the district court. Consequently, the decision is not presently operative, and New Jersey’s existing statutory restrictions remain in effect unless and until the stay is lifted or the Supreme Court acts.
Click here for our article with the updated information.
July 18, 2026 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
In Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey (Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 & 24-2506) (3d Cir. July 17, 2026) (en banc), the court addressed whether New Jersey’s statutory prohibitions on civilian possession of designated “assault firearms,” including semi-automatic rifles, and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. In short, they do.
Background: In 1990, New Jersey enacted restrictive assault-firearm provisions making it a crime to knowingly possess an unlicensed “assault firearm”—a category defined to include more than thirty enumerated rifle, pistol, and shotgun models (including the “Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series”), any firearm “substantially identical” to those models, semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with certain features, and firearms equipped with bump stocks. N.J.S. §§ 2C:39-1(w), -5(f). Violators face up to ten years’ imprisonment and a $150,000 fine. Limited exemptions exist for military and law-enforcement personnel and for certain previously acquired firearms used for target shooting.
The 1990 law also prohibited magazines capable of holding more than fifteen rounds. In 2018, New Jersey reduced the permissible capacity to ten rounds. Owners of magazines exceeding that limit were required to surrender, transfer, permanently modify, or render them inoperable, subject to narrow exceptions. N.J.S. §§ 2C:39-1(y), -3(j).
Gun owners and firearms-rights organizations filed three actions challenging the assault-firearm and magazine provisions under the Second Amendment. After the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the cases were consolidated and resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Legal analysis. In this appeal, the Third Circuit applied the two-step Bruen framework, as refined by United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), and Wolford v. Lopez, 225 L. Ed.2d 494 (June 25, 2026). Step one addresses whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the plaintiff’s conduct—that is, whether the law concerns “Arms” (weapons customarily used offensively or defensively) and restricts “keeping” (possessing) or “bearing” (carrying) them. If so, the conduct is presumptively protected. At step two, the burden shifts to the government to show that the regulation is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Holding: Semi-Automatic Rifles. At Bruen’s first step, the court concluded that semi-automatic rifles are plainly “Arms” under the broad definitions set forth in Heller and Wolford. The plaintiffs’ proposed possession of those rifles for lawful purposes was therefore presumptively protected. At step two, the court found that the law’s “why”—preventing people from “misusing weapons to harm or menace others”—was a legitimate historical purpose. But the “how” was fatal: with an unattainable licensing standard and no meaningful public exemption, the statutory provisions functioned as a de facto ban on an entire class of weapons. The record showed that approximately 24 million AR-15-style rifles are in circulation and commonly used for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and pest control.
Although the District Court had confined its assault-firearm ruling to the Colt AR-15, the Third Circuit held that the record supported a ruling as to all semi-automatic rifles because AR-15-platform rifles from different manufacturers are “largely interchangeable,” and New Jersey never argued that the Colt AR-15 was meaningfully different from other banned semi-automatic rifles.
In brief, the court held that New Jersey’s assault firearm provisions are unconstitutional as applied to all semi-automatic rifles, not merely Colt-manufactured AR-15s. The record was not sufficiently developed, however, to decide the constitutionality of the law as applied to semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, firearm parts, and other regulated weapons. Those issues were remanded to the District Court.
Magazines Holding More Than Ten Rounds. The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that magazines are “Arms” because they feed ammunition into firearms and are necessary for many modern firearms to function as intended. New Jersey’s decision to label a magazine holding more than ten rounds “large capacity” could not control the meaning of the Second Amendment. The court held that neither a ban nor a severe restriction on arms in common lawful use could be reconciled with Heller and Bruen. Thus, the large-capacity-magazine provisions are unconstitutional.
UPDATE: New Jersey moved to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Third Circuit granted the stay. As a result, the mandate has not issued, and the July 17 decision is not presently effective in the district court. Consequently, the decision is not presently operative, and New Jersey’s existing statutory restrictions remain in effect unless and until the stay is lifted or the Supreme Court acts.
Click here for our article with the updated information.
July 18, 2026 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
In Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey (Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 & 24-2506) (3d Cir. July 17, 2026) (en banc), the court addressed whether New Jersey’s statutory prohibitions on civilian possession of designated “assault firearms,” including semi-automatic rifles, and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. In short, they do.
Background: In 1990, New Jersey enacted restrictive assault-firearm provisions making it a crime to knowingly possess an unlicensed “assault firearm”—a category defined to include more than thirty enumerated rifle, pistol, and shotgun models (including the “Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series”), any firearm “substantially identical” to those models, semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with certain features, and firearms equipped with bump stocks. N.J.S. §§ 2C:39-1(w), -5(f). Violators face up to ten years’ imprisonment and a $150,000 fine. Limited exemptions exist for military and law-enforcement personnel and for certain previously acquired firearms used for target shooting.
The 1990 law also prohibited magazines capable of holding more than fifteen rounds. In 2018, New Jersey reduced the permissible capacity to ten rounds. Owners of magazines exceeding that limit were required to surrender, transfer, permanently modify, or render them inoperable, subject to narrow exceptions. N.J.S. §§ 2C:39-1(y), -3(j).
Gun owners and firearms-rights organizations filed three actions challenging the assault-firearm and magazine provisions under the Second Amendment. After the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the cases were consolidated and resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Legal analysis. In this appeal, the Third Circuit applied the two-step Bruen framework, as refined by United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), and Wolford v. Lopez, 225 L. Ed.2d 494 (June 25, 2026). Step one addresses whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the plaintiff’s conduct—that is, whether the law concerns “Arms” (weapons customarily used offensively or defensively) and restricts “keeping” (possessing) or “bearing” (carrying) them. If so, the conduct is presumptively protected. At step two, the burden shifts to the government to show that the regulation is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Holding: Semi-Automatic Rifles. At Bruen’s first step, the court concluded that semi-automatic rifles are plainly “Arms” under the broad definitions set forth in Heller and Wolford. The plaintiffs’ proposed possession of those rifles for lawful purposes was therefore presumptively protected. At step two, the court found that the law’s “why”—preventing people from “misusing weapons to harm or menace others”—was a legitimate historical purpose. But the “how” was fatal: with an unattainable licensing standard and no meaningful public exemption, the statutory provisions functioned as a de facto ban on an entire class of weapons. The record showed that approximately 24 million AR-15-style rifles are in circulation and commonly used for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and pest control.
Although the District Court had confined its assault-firearm ruling to the Colt AR-15, the Third Circuit held that the record supported a ruling as to all semi-automatic rifles because AR-15-platform rifles from different manufacturers are “largely interchangeable,” and New Jersey never argued that the Colt AR-15 was meaningfully different from other banned semi-automatic rifles.
In brief, the court held that New Jersey’s assault firearm provisions are unconstitutional as applied to all semi-automatic rifles, not merely Colt-manufactured AR-15s. The record was not sufficiently developed, however, to decide the constitutionality of the law as applied to semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, firearm parts, and other regulated weapons. Those issues were remanded to the District Court.
Magazines Holding More Than Ten Rounds. The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that magazines are “Arms” because they feed ammunition into firearms and are necessary for many modern firearms to function as intended. New Jersey’s decision to label a magazine holding more than ten rounds “large capacity” could not control the meaning of the Second Amendment. The court held that neither a ban nor a severe restriction on arms in common lawful use could be reconciled with Heller and Bruen. Thus, the large-capacity-magazine provisions are unconstitutional.