In layman’s terms: US District Court strikes down New Jersey’s ban on “Colt AR-15” rifles but upholds “large capacity magazine” ban. To be clear, this is not a good ruling and it is not time to go purchase an AR-15. Both sides will likely appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled today that New Jersey’s ban on the Colt AR-15 is unconstitutional, but also issued a disappointing ruling on “large capacity magazines.”
The case, now known as ANJRPC v. Platkin, is actually a consolidation of three cases:
- ANJRPC v. Platkin (3:18-cv-10507) – Challenged NJ’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, ANJRPC case
- Ellman v. Platkin (3:22-cv-04397) – Challenged NJ’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles, ANJRPC case
- Cheeseman v. Platkin (1:22-cv-04360) – Challenged NJ’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles, FPC case
The cases collectively challenged New Jersey’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.”
In his opinion, Judge Peter Sheridan ruled against the AR ban, but upheld the magazine ban:
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. In contrast, the LCM Amendment is Constitutional under these same decisions. The Third Circuit’s decision on whether the LCM Amendment constitutes an Unconstitutional taking – and its finding that the LCM Amendment does not – remains valid since Bruen did not disrupt this holding.
Judge Sheridan made clear that he doesn’t embrace an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment and prefers the interest balancing approach that takes into account “public safety” arguments over individual liberties. His opening remarks conveyed this hostility:
It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are “off the table” when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes. Even so, the Court’s decision today is dictated by one of the most elementary legal principles within our legal system: stare decisis. That is, where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it.
Given his reluctance to issue such a decision, but wanting to appear to be following the higher court’s precedent, Judge Sheridan seems to have very purposely chosen a narrow decision rather than striking down the entire New Jersey Assault Firearm Law.
Prior to discussing this decision’s logic, the Court addresses the limited scope of this decision. With respect to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment as to the Assault Firearms Law generally, Plaintiffs sometimes broadly frame their argument-effectively seeking a wholesale declaration that the Assault Firearms Law is Unconstitutional. At other times, Plaintiffs are narrower in their request, focusing their arguments on the AR-15.
…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. The question before the Court therefore concerns N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-l(w)(l)’s inclusion of the Colt AR-15 in its enumerated list of “assault firearms” (hereinafter, the “AR-15 Provision”). More precisely, the question is whether the possession of the AR-15 for use within the home for self-defense is Unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. For the reasons enumerated below, the AR-15 Provision is Unconstitutional. Accordingly, the breadth of this decision is limited by the fact that the remainder of the Assault Firearms Law stands since it has not been challenged.
If you like our articles… please subscribe to our 2nd Amendment update list. We generally send one email per week containing 2A news you might’ve missed.
It remains unclear whether the decision is applicable specifically to the Colt AR-15 or to all AR-style copies that are available to the public. New Jersey’s assault firearms law enumerates more than sixty weapons that constitute “assault firearms.” The decision simply states, “Relevant to the analysis here is the provision within the Assault Firearms Law regulating the ‘Colt AR-15’ (hereinafter, the ‘AR-15 Provision’).”
One positive note is the very strong language the court employs in leveraging precedent to strike down New Jersey’s ban:
The AR-15 Provision cannot stand since it is inconsistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Most importantly-and without even undertaking the analytical dive into the historical analogues provided to the Court-this decision is supported by the plain text of Heller.
Irrespective of the unabridged text of the Second Amendment, the court dives into analysis of mass shootings, which are largely irrelevant.
The court’s finding on large capacity magazines, however, hardly seems to be following the Bruen decision for the reasoning that there is no historical precedent for banning magazines during the founding period. Indeed the decision notes that the first patents for magazines didn’t begin appearing in the historical record until the mid-1800s.
With regard to magazines, the court writes:
Applying the Bruen test, one looks first at whether large capacity ammunition magazines are entitled to Second Amendment protections under the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Court need not look far to answer this question. The Supreme Court has held that ‘[t]he possession of arms also implie[s] the possession of ammunition.’ This reading has been confined by the Third Circuit, which has held that large capacity ammunition magazines are an arm within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
In the very next breath, after admitting magazines are arms, the court pivots as to why they should be treated differently. The court throws out the Bruen test of text, history and tradition and reverts to the interest balancing test that Bruen prohibits:
As the briefing has revealed, the question of magazine capacity is directly related to the mass shooting issue since a magazine’s capacity bears strongly upon the lethality and accuracy of modern firearms; where mass shootings have become a societal scourge, the very practical issue of ways to prevent-or alternately, to limit-their lethality is before the Court….Like these restrictions, the LCM Amendment is precisely that-a restriction responding to safety concerns present in our time.
The stated purpose of the State of New Jersey-to effectively slow down a mass shooter-is well-served by the LCM Amendment….This burden on the people of New Jersey’s right to self-defense is comparable to that imposed by these historical laws. 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. For these reasons, the LCM Amendment is Constitutional.
The “for these reasons” part includes numerous references to bans or prohibitions on Bowie knives, which borders on the bizarre, except as a means to further the judge’s personal preferences for upholding New Jersey’s disarmament scheme.
The judge stayed the decision for 30 days to give the state time to appeal. Both sides are certain to appeal.
ANJRPC is the state affiliate of the NRA. As is often the case, preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders apply only narrowly to parties to the case and their members. We highly encourage you to join ANJRPC or if you’re already a member, to donate. This is a key case in restoring Second Amendment rights to citizens in New Jersey and could very well end up serving as a national precedent.
Regardless of appeals, two major questions remain for this ruling:
Would love to know the answers.