Experts Say This Senate Decision Might End Assault Weapon Bans for Good

In his latest video, attorney William Kirk, host of the Washington Gun Law channel, argues that a seemingly technical Senate step could cascade into one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings in years. In his latest breakdown, Kirk says the U.S. Senate advanced a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Jennifer Lee Mascott to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – an action he believes may become the first domino in a chain that threatens state “assault weapon” bans. I think he’s right to flag it: federal courts often turn on procedure long before merits, and personnel is policy on the appellate bench. 

What Cloture Really Does – And Why It Mattered Here

As Kirk explains, cloture is the Senate’s formal way to stop debate and force a vote – traditionally a high bar when used to end filibusters on legislation. For judicial nominations, however, the threshold is lower: a simple majority suffices, thanks to precedents set in 2013 and 2017. Kirk’s point is that this quickened the path for Mascott to join the Third Circuit without the delays that often dog judicial confirmations. My take: regardless of who controls the chamber, streamlined confirmations can shift a court’s center of gravity in a single afternoon.

Why the Third Circuit, Specifically, Is the One to Watch

Kirk zeroes in on geography and timing. The Third Circuit covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – jurisdictions with active firearms litigation. With Mascott’s arrival, he notes, the court’s full complement of 14 judges is restored, and – judging by appointing presidents – a theoretical 8–6 conservative-leaning majority emerges. Labels can be blunt instruments, but in Bruen-era Second Amendment cases where history-and-tradition analysis dominates, judicial philosophy undeniably matters. 

The Case Looming Over Everything: Cheeseman v. Platkin

According to Kirk, the Third Circuit will soon hear en banc arguments in Cheeseman v. Platkin, a direct challenge to New Jersey’s assault weapon ban, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition. En banc review means the full court, not a three-judge panel, will decide. Kirk notes the unusual posture: the Third Circuit snatched the case for full-court consideration before the original panel even issued a ruling. That signals the court understands both the stakes and the need for a durable, precedential answer

Could Judge Mascott Participate Immediately?

Kirk’s read is straightforward: once sworn in, there’s no reason Mascott couldn’t join the en banc arguments and deliberations. If that happens, he suggests the vote could track the court’s newly minted breakdown. Of course, judges often defy simple ideological mapping, and en banc courts sometimes surprise. But as a practical matter, seating a new judge days before a marquee argument can alter the dynamics in the room – from the questions asked to the compromises considered.

From One Case to a National Crack in the Dam

Why does a single circuit decision matter so much? Kirk walks through the pathway to Supreme Court review: for years, proponents of bans have argued there’s no circuit split because appellate courts have tended to uphold restrictions using pre-Bruen frameworks. If the Third Circuit were to strike down New Jersey’s law under Bruen’s text-and-history test, the tidy picture shatters. Now you’d have one federal appellate court invalidating a ban while others have let similar laws stand. That is the Supreme Court’s cue card. 

The Emerging Patchwork: Illinois, Connecticut, and Beyond

Kirk mentions parallel battles – Viramontes in Illinois and Lamont in Connecticut (both challenging state-level “assault weapon” and magazine restrictions). A Third Circuit ruling against New Jersey wouldn’t automatically bind those states, but it would create the split that virtually compels the high court to resolve whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles (and their standard magazines) are protected arms under the Second Amendment’s plain text and historical tradition. That’s the kind of conflict the justices are built to settle. 

The Bruen Backbone: “Common Use” Meets History and Tradition

Although Kirk focuses on the courtroom chessboard, the doctrinal heart remains Bruen and its insistence on historical analogues rather than interest balancing. Assault weapon bans run headlong into two modern realities: semiautomatic rifles are widely owned for lawful purposes, and the government must point to historical regulations with a comparable burden and justification. That’s hard to do for sweeping, feature-based bans. If the Third Circuit leans into Bruen’s methodology, New Jersey’s law may face an uphill climb. 

Timing, Politics, and the Human Element

Kirk traces the Third Circuit’s composition to different appointing presidents and recent political control of the Senate, underscoring how elections ripple through the judiciary. My view: none of this guarantees outcomes – judges are not votes in a ledger – but it frames expectations. Courts are human institutions. New colleagues change conversations. Fresh voices can press for clearer rules, narrower holdings, or bolder ones. If Mascott participates in Cheeseman, her questions alone could nudge the court toward a more text-and-history faithful reading.

What Happens If New Jersey Loses

Kirk is blunt: New Jersey would almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. A loss would also reverberate across the Third Circuit, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, which he notes has floated its own ban ideas. For states betting on endurance via delay, an adverse en banc ruling would be a flashing warning light. Expect emergency motions, stays, and a fast-track to One First Street. 

My Read on the Stakes

Kirk calls this a “big win” because process begets outcomes: cloture paved the way for an appointment; the appointment might shape an en banc court; that court could break the logjam; a broken logjam draws the Supreme Court; and that review could resolve the national question: whether bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard magazines survive Bruen. I think he’s captured it. If you care about the Second Amendment’s scope, the next moves in the Third Circuit aren’t just regional – they’re potentially defining.

The Bottom Line – and What to Watch Next

In Kirk’s telling, the calendar matters: oral argument in Cheeseman v. Platkin is set imminently, and Judge Mascott’s participation could be decisive. Watch for the court’s questions about history, “common use,” and what qualifies as a relevant analogue. Also watch the remedy: even a state loss could come with a stay to let the Supreme Court weigh in. However it unfolds, a small procedural spark in the Senate may soon illuminate the national debate over what the Second Amendment protects.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.