
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Jersey Assault Weapons Ban in Major Second Amendment Victory
In a landmark ruling, a federal appeals court on Friday declared New Jersey’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines unconstitutional, marking the first time a federal appellate court has invalidated a state’s assault weapons prohibition under the Second Amendment.
The decision was issued by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The court ruled that New Jersey’s restrictions on semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style firearms, as well as its prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
The ruling comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering similar legal challenges. Last month, the nation’s highest court agreed to review lower court decisions that upheld comparable assault weapons bans enacted in Cook County, Illinois, and the state of Connecticut. The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority.
The New Jersey case was brought by several gun rights organizations, which argued that the state’s firearms restrictions could no longer withstand constitutional scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 Second Amendment decision.
In that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that modern firearm regulations must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
A federal district judge had previously issued a split decision in 2024, concluding that New Jersey’s prohibition on AR-15 rifles was unconstitutional while allowing the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds to remain in effect.
The full appeals court went even further. By a 10-5 vote, it ruled that New Jersey’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles—not just AR-15-style firearms—violates the Second Amendment. The court also struck down the state’s restriction on large-capacity magazines, concluding that both provisions are unconstitutional.