On Tuesday, a federal judge lifted New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles, but left in place the ban on magazines with more than ten rounds. US District Judge Peter Sheridan issued the judgment.
New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional, but the state’s cap on magazines holding more than 10 rounds is constitutional, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
In his 69-page opinion, US District Judge Peter Sheridan explains that he was forced to make his decision because of the Supreme Court’s decisions in gun matters, particularly in the 2022 Bruen decision the expanded gun rights.
Sheridan’s ruling prompted both Second Amendment advocates and the state’s attorney general to appeal the plan. The judge temporarily stayed the order for 30 days.
This is a qualified victory for Second Amendment advocates and arguably for the state of New Jersey. While the decision reaffirms the Bruen decision, it also sidesteps the issue of magazine capacity.
One of the plaintiffs in this case stated:
“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. The FPC will continue to fight until all such bans are repealed across the United States,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition and one of the plaintiffs.
This is a constant and ongoing battle; Democratic President Kamala Harris, like most Democrats, has made banning “assault weapons” a priority, but has still failed to provide a coherent definition of the term. Which brings us to the New Jersey Attorney General’s reaction to this decision:
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement that the ruling undermines public safety.
“The AR-15 is a tool designed for war that causes catastrophic mass injury, and it is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across the country,” he said.
There is literally nothing factually correct about this statement. First, the “…designed for war” argument is a lie. The AR-15 as sold on the commercial market has never been used by the armed forces of any nation anywhere, even though the basic platform was the basis for the M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine currently available in the United States – which are not semi-automatic, but selective fire weapons. 1903 Springfield repeating rifle was also “designed for war”, like his great-grandfather, the 1861 Springfield rifled musket. This difference is meaningless. The AR-15 platform fires a .22 caliber cartridge with only moderate power; most substantial game rifles are far more powerful and many of them are also semi-automatic.
As for the “weapon of choice” argument, Mr. Platkin is not even close; the extensive majority of such shootings are carried out with handgunsno guns of any kind.
Advocating for a particular public policy is one thing. Doing so while completely ignoring the facts surrounding that policy is quite another.
See also: Gun rights groups sue California over ridiculous gun tax
Ten million gun owners don’t vote. Republicans should take note of that.
This decision will be appealed, almost certainly by both sides. The magazine ban issue, which (rightly) vexes Second Amendment supporters, will be contested, while New Jersey will surely appeal the AR-15 decision. For now, though, Second Amendment supporters can celebrate a victory—even if it is a double-edged sword—and brace themselves for the next round in this never-ending battle.
