In a strange split decision, a federal judge in New Jersey reluctantly ruled that the state’s ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional, while also ruling that the state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines is not.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, made the July 30 ruling in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin based on the standard set by the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. While the law actually bans more than 60 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, Judge Sheridan limited his ruling to Colt AR-15 rifles because, he said, that was the gun “with which the Court has been provided the most information” in briefs and arguments.
“Under Heller, while the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, the Supreme Court forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership,” Judge Sheridan wrote. “Guided by this decision, and for the reasons below, the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law which prohibits the use of the Colt AR-15 for the use of self-defense within the home does not pass constitutional muster when applying the Bruen standard.”
In the ruling, Judge Sheridan pointed out that AR-15s are very commonly owned, used for lawful purposes and frequently used for self-defense.
“Plaintiffs have shown that the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in this matter have also said that, but for the Assault Firearms Law’s AR-15 Provision, they would own an AR-15 for the purpose of self-defense within the home.”
In the ruling, Judge Sheridan made it very clear that he didn’t agree with the Bruen decision that he had to consider when ruling on the case.
“It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote. “Even so, the Court’s decision today is dictated by one of the most elementary legal principles within our legal system: stare decisis. That is, where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it.”
Judge Sheridan’s ruling on so-called “large-capacity” magazines (LCMs) was completely different, however.
“The LCM Amendment passes constitutional muster because although the Second Amendment right is implicated, this regulation is in line with the historical regulations within the tradition of our nation,” he wrote in the ruling. “Put more precisely, the reduction of capacity is a limitation on firearms ownership. It is not a categorical ban preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights for a weapon that is in common use for self-defense.”
The ruling, which one might think would make both sides happy, actually left both very unsatisfied. The state is expected to appeal the AR-15 portion of the ruling, while plaintiffs will likely appeal the ruling on the state’s magazine ban.
Read the full article here
