Federal appeals court rules that New Jersey's assault weapons ban is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that New Jersey's bans on assault firearms and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are unconstitutional. [KSAT 12]

A federal appellate panel in Philadelphia struck down New Jersey's restrictions on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines Friday, marking the first time a circuit court has invalidated such state-level weapons prohibitions. The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arrives amid ongoing litigation over Second Amendment protections, with the nation's highest court expected to weigh in on comparable bans affecting semiautomatic firearms.

The ruling represents a broader assertion than a lower court determination issued last summer, when a federal judge found New Jersey's specific prohibition on AR-15-style rifles violated constitutional rights but preserved the state's magazine restrictions. The appellate court disagreed on the magazine limitation, finding both restrictions incompatible with Second Amendment protections.

The decision stands in contrast to another appellate ruling issued just days earlier upholding Illinois' comparable semiautomatic weapons ban, illustrating a widening split among federal judges on gun regulations. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 11 states plus Washington D.C. maintain assault weapons bans, while 12 jurisdictions have imposed ammunition magazine capacity limits generally or for specific firearm categories.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat who defended the state's law, characterized the decision as "legally incorrect," noting that previous federal appellate decisions have supported such restrictions. She emphasized that both weapon categories contribute substantially to mass shooting incidents and stated the state would examine further legal options. Gun rights advocates hailed the outcome as momentous. John Commerford of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action described the decision as "a historic victory for the NRA, the Second Amendment, and law-abiding Americans."

Legal scholars suggested the ruling carries broader implications. Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, said the decision marked an unexpected development given courts' traditional support for weapons bans but cautioned it might indicate how the Supreme Court intends to rule on comparable prohibitions. "What this Third Circuit opinion shows is that there are very few gun laws that are safe from being struck down right now," Winkler said.