PHILADELPHIA — Over the last 30 years, New Jersey laws governing (and infringing upon) the ability of citizens to own semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines have gotten progressively more and more restrictive. Today, that changed, with a significant portion of the “assault weapons” gun control scheme being toppled by a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
“ANJRPC has spearheaded these challenges to New Jersey’s bans on ‘assault weapons’ and magazines for nearly a decade,” said a spokesperson for the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the state-level affiliate of the NRA. “While these challenges were met with initial resistance in the lower federal courts, it is gratifying to see our advocacy for the every-day gun owner finally victorious. Gun owners also owe a huge debt of gratitude to the NRA and NRA-ILA for their incredible financial and legal assistance in this case.”
“Today’s victory for the NRA in the AR-15 case is a powerful reminder that the Second Amendment isn’t just for Texas or Montana – it belongs to every American, including the good people in my home state of New Jersey,” said John Commerford, in a statement to News2A. Commerford, a New Jersey native who serves as the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, went on to add, “For too long, politicians in Trenton have tried to treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals for owning the most popular rifle in America. This ruling sends a clear message: the Constitution doesn’t bend to state-level fearmongering. As someone who grew up in South Jersey respecting both our hunting traditions and the rights our founders fought for, I’m proud to see the courts stand up for freedom over feel-good politics. The fight isn’t over, but this is a big win for common sense and constitutional liberty.”
The en banc court delivered its decision in the consolidated case of Cheeseman v. Attorney General (formerly Cheeseman v. Platkin) with strong majority support, but fractured opinions on both sides and several concurrences. Seven judges fully joined Judge Freeman in her opinion, with two additional judges concurring in a separate opinion that the remand was unnecessary. Four judges joined the main dissent, and one judge dissented in part and concurred in part.
The court reheard oral arguments in October of 2025 and recently requested supplementary briefings from both parties as they related to recent Supreme Court decisions in Wolford and Hemani. The case was originally argued in July of 2025 by a three-judge panel.
In today’s majority decision, the court found New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban (which, for the purposes of the decision, it is calling “Assault Firearm Provisions”) to be unconstitutional with respect to the “full class of semi-automatic rifles,” going beyond the district court’s finding, which overturned only New Jersey’s ban on the Colt AR-15 by name. New Jersey previously banned over 30 “assault firearms” by name (though the list is closer to 50 when considering variants), along with any firearm “substantially identical to any of the firearms listed.”
The court also determined that New Jersey’s ban on “Large Capacity Magazines” (any magazine holding more than 10 rounds) is likewise unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and thus did not need to be addressed under the Takings Clause challenge.
“The textual analysis is straightforward,” the court wrote, adding, “Plaintiffs in these consolidated matters are among ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects, and New Jersey’s law restricts the keeping and bearing of semi-automatic rifles. The only remaining question is whether those firearms are ‘any form of “Arms,” i.e., any weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes.’ They are.”
The court remanded a portion of the case back to the district court “for resolution of the Second Amendment challenge to the other models and types of firearms covered by the Assault Firearm Provisions.” Here, it references the remainder of the “assault weapons” ban that would apply to semi-auto pistols, shotguns, and other weapons, which were not part of the strict finding that applied only to semi-automatic rifles.
From a practical standpoint, the court’s order to remand (or send back) the case to the district court means there are more legal proceedings that need to occur before consumers can expect to see a standard array of full-featured semi-automatic firearms for sale in stores. The fact that the case was remanded was notable to Judge Matey, who wrote, “Another four years of proceedings to reach those conclusions again is not needed.” That statement alone suggests there is the possibility that the proceedings in the district court could drag out, no matter how likely or unlikely.
As for magazines, while the court’s decision striking down the magazine ban seems straightforward, retailers will most certainly be consulting with legal experts before making significant changes to their sales inventories. Consumers should not expect 30-round magazines to be available in stores immediately.
As expected, the New Jersey Attorney General objected to the court’s decision, calling it “legally incorrect,” and criticizing it further by insisting that “Every other federal circuit court to consider the issue has come out the other way.” As for next steps, the AG said only, “We are considering our options.”
Should New Jersey appeal the outcome to the Supreme Court, it would be facing a court that has already decided to take an “assault weapons” ban case, and based upon current ideological composition, would likely rule similarly to the Third Circuit.
In a separate June 2025 ruling in a case brought by Mexico against Smith & Wesson, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the AR-15 is legally owned by millions of law-abiding Americans and is “the most popular rifle in the country.” These elements provide a hint as to how the Supreme Court views the subject and a possible outcome on the pending case.
This is also one of the cases that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice intervened in, submitting an amicus brief to the court in September of 2025. In that brief, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon told the court, “New Jersey’s complete bans on possessing rifles such as the AR-15 and magazines with a more-than-ten-round capacity violate the Second Amendment.”
Ms. Dhillon and her team at the Second Amendment Section surely deserve a portion of the credit for today’s victory at the Third Circuit, given the deference the court must have provided to the government’s well-reasoned briefs on the subject.
