A major courtroom showdown unfolded this week in Philadelphia, where the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments over New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles and magazines over ten rounds.
According to Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, this case could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment battles since Heller and Bruen.
“This morning we had a major oral argument in the city of brotherly love,” Smith said. “The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit participated.”
The case, known as Cheeseman v. Platkin, challenges New Jersey’s sweeping ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. The plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment’s core protections for arms in common use.
New Judges Change the Court’s Balance
As John Crump of Ammoland reported, the timing of this hearing was notable. Two new judges, Jennifer Mascott and Emil Bove, joined the bench just in time for this case. Mascott, a former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, was sworn in less than a day before oral arguments began.
With those additions, the Third Circuit shifted from a left-leaning court to one with a conservative majority – eight Republican appointees to six Democrats.
Crump noted that Mascott’s confirmation “swung the makeup of the court,” and her presence in the courtroom was confirmed by Mark Smith, who called it “a very big deal” for the future of the Second Amendment in the Northeast.
The Background: Two Laws, One Fight
Crump explained that the plaintiffs, backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), filed their challenge in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. That ruling changed how courts evaluate gun laws, rejecting “interest balancing” and requiring governments to justify restrictions through text, history, and tradition.
The case was later merged with a similar lawsuit brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC). Together, they argue that AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines are protected arms under Heller, which affirmed that weapons “in common use” cannot be banned.
Mark Smith explained that “millions and millions” of Americans own AR-15s, making them the most popular rifles in the country. “These are in common use by definition,” he said. “They are arms used for lawful purposes, so they cannot be banned under the Second Amendment.”
The Arguments in Court
Attorney Erin Murphy opened the arguments for the plaintiffs. Crump reported that she “explained that the AR-15 and large capacity magazines are in common use,” directly citing Heller.
When asked by one judge if that meant AR-15s could never be banned, Murphy confirmed, “Yes, that is our position.”
Another attorney for the plaintiffs, Pete Patterson, told the court that the burden of proof rests on the state, not gun owners. “Since there are millions of AR-15s in the hands of Americans, they are surely protected,” Patterson said.
Mark Smith broke down why that point is key. Under Heller, he said, once an item qualifies as an “arm,” the burden shifts to the government to show a historical tradition of banning it.
“The state bears the burden,” Smith emphasized. “It’s not about whether guns are good or bad – it’s about whether they’ve historically been banned.”
New Jersey’s Defense Meets Heavy Skepticism
Crump reported that New Jersey’s attorney tried to sway the court emotionally, citing mass shootings and framing the AR-15 as inherently dangerous. But the tactic fell flat.
Judges pushed back hard, questioning whether the state could justify a complete ban on commonly owned firearms. One judge asked bluntly how the law squares with the Second Amendment’s intent “to defend against tyranny.”
Smith explained that New Jersey’s central argument hinged on redefining what “dangerous and unusual” means. The state claimed it should read as “dangerous or unusual” – a small word swap with massive consequences. But as Smith noted, that interpretation “contradicts what the Supreme Court clearly said in Heller.”
He also said that accepting that logic would mean “the state could ban every gun in America, because all guns are dangerous by definition.”
The “Unusually Dangerous” Debate
Smith highlighted another flaw in New Jersey’s reasoning. The state argued that AR-15s are “unusually dangerous.” But, he said, “for something to be unusually dangerous, you first have to define what is usual.”
“If tens of millions of Americans own semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds,” Smith said, “that use is usual. It cannot be unusually dangerous because it’s ubiquitous.”
Crump agreed that judges appeared unconvinced by New Jersey’s logic. “The state’s lawyer seemed to be playing defense,” he wrote, “as judges appeared more persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments.”
Bowie Knives and History Lessons
Both Smith and Crump noted that New Jersey tried to cite 19th-century Bowie knife restrictions as historical precedent. But that example backfired.
As Crump explained, those laws didn’t ban ownership — they only regulated concealed carry. Smith pointed out the same distinction, saying, “There’s a difference between restricting the way you carry something and banning it outright.”
New Jersey’s AR-15 law, by contrast, is an absolute ban on both possession and use. That difference, Smith argued, destroys any claim of historical similarity.
Defining “Common Use” and “The People”
A particularly interesting exchange, according to Smith, revolved around the meaning of “the right of the people.”
He said anti-gun advocates are trying to twist that phrase, arguing that “the people” speaks through legislatures – meaning lawmakers can decide which arms citizens may keep. Smith rejected that idea outright.
“The right of the people means you and me,” he said. “We decide by our actions in the marketplace what’s in common use.”
That interpretation carries enormous implications. If “the people” collectively determine what arms are protected through ownership patterns, then popular weapons like AR-15s automatically fall under constitutional protection.
What Happens Next
The arguments lasted about ninety minutes. While no ruling was issued, both Crump and Smith believe the momentum favored the plaintiffs.
“The questions were overall favorable to us,” Smith said. “If I had to bet, I would bet that we likely will win this case.”
Crump’s analysis lined up with that optimism. He noted that the judges “seemed more persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments than by the state’s.”
If the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey’s bans, it would set a massive precedent across the region – affecting similar laws in Delaware and Pennsylvania, which fall under the same appellate jurisdiction.
A Battle With National Stakes
This case isn’t just about New Jersey. It’s about defining the limits of government power under the Second Amendment.
What’s fascinating is how much hangs on a few legal phrases – “dangerous and unusual,” “in common use,” “the right of the people.” Those words, written centuries ago, are being parsed in a courtroom that now holds the power to reshape modern firearms law.
The involvement of newly confirmed Judge Jennifer Mascott adds extra weight. Her record and background suggest a strong constitutionalist outlook, and her participation could tip the balance toward a ruling that reaffirms gun ownership as a personal, not collective, right.
If that happens, New Jersey’s ban could collapse – and with it, the legal foundation for similar restrictions nationwide.
As Smith put it bluntly in his closing remarks: “This should be a slam dunk case. AR-15s are in common use, and the Constitution is clear. You can’t ban what the people keep.”
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.
