3rd Circuit Strikes Down N.J. Assaut Weapon & Mag. Ban

Ammoland reports: "Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s AR-15 & Magazine Bans." From the article:

Sitting en banc [i.e., the whole court rather than a three judge panel as normal], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 in Cheeseman v. Davenport, formerly Cheeseman v. Platkin, that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

 No word on whether New Jersey will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    The article also explains the importance of this decision to other "assault weapon" ban cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear:

    The national importance of this ruling is difficult to overstate. Other federal appellate courts have upheld semiautomatic-rifle or magazine bans by treating commonly owned rifles as military weapons, minimizing lawful possession, or stretching late historical regulations beyond recognition.

    Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s dissent acknowledged exactly what the majority accomplished. She complained that the ruling makes the Third Circuit “the only Court of Appeals in the Nation to afford constitutional protection to AR-15s and LCMs.”

    That admission identifies the real story. There is now a clean federal appellate split over whether the government may ban AR-15-style rifles and commonly owned magazines.

    The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit has now given the justices a detailed roadmap grounded in Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.

The article warns against immediately treating the laws as void: "New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely."