Federal Appeals Court Voids New Jersey’s Bans on Semiautomatic Rifles and High-Capacity Magazines

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a sweeping decision Friday that invalidated New Jersey’s prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, finding both restrictions incompatible with constitutional protections. The panel’s ruling concluded the state had failed to demonstrate how these firearm regulations aligned with the nation’s historical gun control traditions.

The National Rifle Association, which filed the lawsuit in 2018, characterized the outcome as transformative for gun rights advocates across the country. According to Justin Davis, the NRA’s managing director of public affairs, the decision represents “a monumental win” in the broader struggle to preserve Second Amendment freedoms, Fox News Digital reported.

In a statement, the NRA described the ruling as “a historic victory for the Second Amendment, and law-abiding Americans,” emphasizing that it protects commonly owned firearms and standard ammunition magazines from state-level prohibition. The organization framed the decision as a critical element in its ongoing national effort to challenge gun restrictions.

U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman authored the majority opinion, relying on constitutional standards established by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. These precedents require states to prove their gun regulations conform to historical American traditions governing firearm ownership.

New Jersey enacted its assault-weapons law in 1990 in response to a mass shooting at a school in California, with the governor at that time characterizing the banned firearms as tools of “wholesale destruction.” The appeals court determined the state had not satisfied the constitutional framework needed to sustain either prohibition.

Judges in dissent argued that semiautomatic military-style weapons represent a distinct category of firearms suitable for state regulation under historical precedent and public safety concerns. The dissenters also noted the decision contradicts rulings from every other federal circuit court that has upheld comparable state gun restrictions.