The ban on AR-15s cannot stand because it is inconsistent with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation, Judge Sheridan wrote.
An AR-15 rifle at FT3 tactical shooting range in Stanton, Calif., on May 3, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
A federal judge has ruled that New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, although he refused to extend that determination to other firearms subject to the prohibition. He also upheld the state’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines.
U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued an order on July 30 declaring that including the Colt AR-15 rifle on the list of firearms defined in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Section 2C:39-1 as an “assault firearm” and subjecting it to restrictions violates the Second Amendment and is incompatible with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
“The AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home,” Sheridan wrote in an accompanying memorandum, referring to two cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2022 and 2008, respectively.
The Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to own firearms in their homes for lawful self-defense, while Bruen established a history-and-tradition-based test for gun ownership.
Sheridan wrote that New Jersey’s prohibition on AR-15s cannot stand because it’s inconsistent with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation, as it bans an entire class of commonly used firearms for self-defense within the home.
“In this court’s understanding of Supreme Court precedent, a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful,” he wrote.
However, the judge declined to extend his determination to any other of the 60-plus guns that are defined as “assault firearms” under New Jersey law, which prohibits their possession without a registration and license. The judge wrote that the court had only been fully briefed on the AR-15 and not on any of the other firearms on the restricted list, and that the other gun bans should be the subject of a separate lawsuit.
“Given the variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents, the Court’s analysis of the Assault Firearms Law is limited to the firearm with which the Court has been provided the most information: the AR-15,” he wrote.
Sheridan upheld New Jersey’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs), which are defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The LCM ban prohibits possession of such magazines unless the possessor has registered an “assault firearm” in line with state law and uses the magazine in connection with sanctioned competitive shooting matches.
The judge argued that the LCM ban is different from the categorical ban on AR-15s because the law doesn’t restrict the number of magazines a person can own, just their capacity. He also reasoned that the “unprecedented rapidity and damage of mass shootings support a nuanced reading” of the historical analogs under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.
He argued that large-capacity detachable magazines can be traced directly to military heritage and brought up the historical analogy of restrictions on Bowie knives.
“Like these restrictions, the LCM Amendment is precisely that—a restriction responding to safety concerns present in our time,” he wrote, arguing that the burden on New Jersey residents’ right to self-defense is comparable to that imposed by historical laws restricting the way that Bowie knives could be carried and used.
“As such, these historical analogues provide the basis for the following conclusion: that the State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines.”
The judge ruled that the LCM ban is constitutional. He issued a 30-day stay on his decision, meaning the AR-15 ban remains temporarily in effect.
Several of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case have already filed an appeal.
New Jersey residents Mark Cheeseman and Timothy Connelly (dubbed the Cheeseman plaintiffs in the case) and gun rights advocacy group Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a notice of appeal on July 30.
FPC said in a statement that the appeal targets “legal deficiencies” in the judge’s opinion and that the motion seeks the “full relief” that was originally requested from the district court, which included a request to overturn the “assault firearm” restriction as it applied to the list of 60-plus guns and ones that are “substantially similar.”
“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a July 30 statement.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, one of the defendants in the case, said in a statement posted on social media that he plans to appeal the portion of the ruling that declares the AR-15 ban unconstitutional while praising the other aspects of the ruling.
“I am disappointed that the district court has held that individuals have a constitutional right to possess the Colt AR-15,” he said, calling such firearms an “instrument designed for warfare.”
“All New Jerseyans should know that the overwhelming majority of our law remains intact today.”
Platkin noted that the court upheld the LCM ban and didn’t allow individuals to possess any other guns classified as “assault firearms.”
He said he remains committed to defending the entirety of New Jersey’s firearm law and looks forward to pressing the state’s arguments on appeal.
Restrictions on magazine capacity ranging from 10 to 20 rounds of ammunition are in effect in 14 states and the District of Columbia, according to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA).
Bans of so-called assault weapons have been adopted in nearly a dozen states, according to the USCCA.
Tom Ozimek is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times. He has a broad background in journalism, deposit insurance, marketing and communications, and adult education.
