A federal appeals court has struck down New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons, ruling that restrictions on semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds, violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia marks the first instance of a federal appeals court overturning a state-level assault weapons ban on constitutional grounds.
The ruling comes as the issue of restrictions on semiautomatic rifles is moving closer to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has agreed to examine similar bans in Illinois’ Cook County and Connecticut, potentially setting the stage for a broader ruling on the legality of such weapons restrictions.
The New Jersey law had been challenged by gun rights organisations, which argued that the ban could not survive the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen*. That judgment held that modern firearm regulations must be compatible with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
New Jersey, along with several other states, defended its restrictions by arguing that assault weapons are military-style firearms capable of causing widespread destruction and have been used in mass shootings.
The appeals court went beyond an earlier ruling issued by a lower court in 2024. While that decision had found the state’s ban on AR-15 rifles unconstitutional, it allowed the magazine restriction to remain in place.
In a 10-5 decision, the appeals court ruled that New Jersey’s prohibition on semiautomatic rifles as a category, rather than only AR-15s, was unconstitutional. It also struck down the ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The court further ordered the lower court to examine how the assault weapons law applies to other firearms, including semiautomatic handguns and shotguns.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman said Supreme Court precedent established that broad bans on weapons commonly used for lawful purposes lacked support in the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
She added that the constitutional analysis did not change simply because a law was enacted with the aim of reducing gun violence.
The ruling was supported by a majority that included judges appointed by presidents from both parties.
A dissenting judge, U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, argued that states should retain the authority to prohibit weapons considered dangerous and unusual, pointing to the use of semiautomatic rifles in crimes and mass shootings.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups involved in the challenge, welcomed the ruling.
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, however, said the state was reviewing its legal options, calling the decision unfortunate and defending the restrictions as reasonable measures aimed at addressing the threat posed by assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
If you want, I can also make this **more sharply written for a legal news website**, with a more distinctive headline and tighter paragraphs.
