New Jersey’s decades-old bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds just faced their biggest legal test in years.
As Briana Vannozzi reported for NJ Spotlight News, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard en banc arguments on whether the Garden State’s prohibitions pass muster after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. That alone signals the stakes – en banc reviews are rare, and they’re reserved for questions that could reset the law across the entire circuit.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin is all-in on defending the laws. He told Vannozzi the state has barred assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for “35 years,” calling the measures “consistent with the nation’s long history of regulating unusually dangerous weapons” and “essential for public safety.”
That framing matters. Post-Bruen, states must justify gun regulations by pointing to historical analogues. Platkin says New Jersey can.
Two Narratives, One Courtroom
Platkin’s case rests on outcomes and history. As relayed by Vannozzi, he pointed to horrific mass shootings elsewhere – Newtown, Las Vegas, Orlando – where AR-15-style rifles were used, arguing those rifles create an outsized risk to the public. He also highlighted New Jersey’s relatively low gun violence rates in recent years as validation that the bans work.
He’s not just defending the statutes; he’s touting broader enforcement wins. Vannozzi notes a green light for New Jersey’s lawsuit against Glock over illegal “switches” that convert pistols into machine guns. Platkin’s message: companies “don’t get to just profit off illegal behavior,” whether they’re here or “overseas.”
On the other side, constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner painted a very different legal landscape in his post-argument breakdown. He emphasized this isn’t a policy referendum; it’s a pure Second Amendment test built on Heller and Bruen.
Smith explained the challengers are Mark Cheeseman and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, targeting New Jersey’s AR-15 and magazine bans. He underscored that the entire Third Circuit participated, another reminder of the stakes, and flagged that newly confirmed Judge Jennifer Mascott joined the hearing, something he’d followed closely.
The Burden, The Test, And “Common Use”
Smith’s core contention is doctrinal: Heller controls arms-ban cases. If the state bans an “arm,” he said, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition of banning that category of arm.
He stressed that Heller’s touchstone is whether a weapon is “in common use” by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. If it is, it isn’t “dangerous and unusual,” and categorical bans are off the table.
On that score, Smith argued, AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines plainly qualify. Millions of rifles in circulation. Hundreds of millions of magazines over 10 rounds. By his telling, that should make this a straightforward case.
I think Smith’s read accurately captures the current Supreme Court roadmap: when the state bans a class of arms in common use, it starts behind. But “common use” litigation gets messy fast – how we count, what we count, and which purposes count – so “straightforward” rarely means easy.
New Jersey’s Pushback – And The Panel’s Skepticism
According to Smith, New Jersey pivoted hard on the legal test. Rather than focusing on “dangerous and unusual,” Smith said the state pressed variants like “dangerous or unusual” and “unusually dangerous.”
Why does that matter? If the rule were “dangerous or unusual,” one judge noted, then “all guns are dangerous,” which would effectively let a state ban anything. That, Smith said, drew skepticism from the bench.
Even the “unusually dangerous” gloss ran into a logical snag, he argued. To call something “unusual,” you need a baseline of what’s usual. With tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles and ubiquitous standard-capacity magazines, the “unusual” label becomes hard to sustain.
To be fair, states often respond that “common” can’t become a constitutional trump card – otherwise manufacturers could flood the market to insulate any arm from regulation.
But Bruen and Heller push courts to look to text and tradition, not popularity contests. That tension is why these cases repeatedly climb back to the Supreme Court.
Bowie Knives, History, And The Limits Of Analogy
Smith also walked through New Jersey’s history playbook. He said the state leaned on 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives. The response from challengers, per Smith: those were manner restrictions (often targeting concealed carry), not possession bans. Under Bruen, the analogy breaks; regulating how someone carries a weapon is not a historical twin for banning ownership of an entire class of arms.
That’s a strong point. Even under Bruen’s analogical approach, the fit has to be relevantly similar in both how and why the regulation burdens the right. A concealed-carry restriction from the 1800s doesn’t easily map onto a modern-day categorical ban on owning AR-15s at home.
Vannozzi’s reporting anticipates this clash. Platkin says the bans align with a tradition of regulating “unusually dangerous” weapons. The challengers answer that the tradition draws a bright line at bans on commonly possessed arms.
If the Third Circuit accepts the Bowie-knife-style analogues, it will signal broad leeway for states. If it rejects them, expect a wave of follow-on challenges in other states with similar prohibitions.
Politics, Personnel, And A Broader Fight
Vannozzi noted the en banc panel included Judge Emil Bove, a Trump appointee whose prior DOJ role drew earlier criticism from Platkin. Asked about Bove’s presence, Platkin said he respects the court while warning about “politicization” of the justice system.
Smith, for his part, highlighted a different personnel storyline: the confirmation and participation of Judge Jennifer Mascott (a former clerk to Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh). He read the overall questioning as “favorable” to the challengers and, if forced to bet, said he’d bet the bans are struck.
One more twist from Smith: he said the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Ashley Moody Bondi filed a brief supporting the Second Amendment side in this case.
If that alignment holds, it’s a notable federal signal in a post-Bruen era where the federal government’s positions can tip how lower courts calibrate “history and tradition.”
The Other Courtroom: Public Opinion
Platkin’s public-safety argument is the state’s strongest political narrative. He points to low New Jersey gun death rates and to the uniquely lethal use of AR-platform rifles in high-profile massacres elsewhere. In his view, the bans are working – and they’re lawful.
But as Smith emphasized, courts aren’t supposed to green-light rights restrictions because they’re popular or even effective. The Second Amendment analysis asks a narrower question: does the history support this type of restriction on this class of arms?
My take: if the Third Circuit adopts Heller’s “common use” frame cleanly, New Jersey’s categorical bans will be difficult to sustain. If the court reframes the test to emphasize “unusually dangerous” and accepts broader analogies, the state has a path.
Either way, the opinion will be a blueprint for Delaware, Pennsylvania, and beyond.
Vannozzi closed with the big picture: whatever the Third Circuit decides will echo across the country. In the post-Bruen world, appellate courts are building the new case law live and in public. This ruling will either fortify the “common use” shield for AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines – or carve out a doctrine that lets states recast them as “unusually dangerous” and bannable.
Smith thinks the challengers cleared the most important hurdles in argument and that Heller’s logic will carry the day. Platkin is betting the court will accept that states can restrict categories of weapons that pose heightened risks, backed by a historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous arms.
I’ll add this: whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court will be watching. If the Third Circuit splits from the Seventh, Fourth, or Ninth Circuits on similar bans, a nationwide answer may not be far behind.
The Only Certainty: The Stakes Just Rose
From Briana Vannozzi’s on-the-ground reporting with Attorney General Matt Platkin, to Mark W. Smith’s inside-baseball analysis of the en banc argument, one thing is clear – the Third Circuit isn’t just reviewing a statute. It’s testing where the Second Amendment’s limits begin and end for an entire class of widely owned firearms and magazines.
If New Jersey wins, expect other states to double down on similar bans with renewed confidence.
If the challengers win, a major pillar of contemporary gun control could crumble across multiple jurisdictions overnight.
Either way, the ruling won’t just decide what New Jerseyans can own. It will help decide how courts read the Second Amendment in the decade ahead.
For more info check out the NJ Spotlight News article here and The Four Boxes Diner’s video here.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
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.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
