For more than three decades, New Jersey has had some of the toughest firearm laws in the country. That may be about to change.
In Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that New Jersey’s prohibition on many AR-style semi-automatic rifles and its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. While the decision is almost certain to be appealed, it represents one of the most significant Second Amendment rulings issued by a federal appellate court since the United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.
The opinion is important not simply because New Jersey lost. It is important because of why the court ruled the way it did.
The Third Circuit concluded that AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines are protected by the Second Amendment because they are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The majority noted that millions of these rifles and magazines are owned throughout the United States. Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Bruen, that widespread lawful ownership matters. Once an arm falls within the protection of the Second Amendment, the government must demonstrate that similar restrictions have a historical tradition dating back to the founding era. According to the Third Circuit, New Jersey could not make that showing.
That reasoning marks a significant shift in how firearm regulations are evaluated. In the past, courts often balanced a person’s constitutional rights against the government’s interest in public safety. Bruen rejected that approach. Instead, courts must ask whether a modern regulation resembles restrictions that were historically accepted when the Second Amendment was adopted. Applying that framework, the Third Circuit concluded that New Jersey’s bans could not survive constitutional scrutiny.
If the decision ultimately stands, its practical effect would be substantial. New Jersey’s prohibitions on many AR-style rifles and its ten-round magazine limit could no longer be enforced. For thousands of New Jersey residents, firearms and magazines that have long been prohibited under state law could become lawful to own, subject to whatever other regulations remain in place. The decision would also likely invite new constitutional challenges to other firearm restrictions that rely on the same historical analysis.
The opinion’s influence will extend well beyond New Jersey. Federal courts around the country have reached different conclusions when considering similar bans, creating a growing split among the circuits. That disagreement makes Supreme Court review increasingly likely.
The Supreme Court is already considering challenges involving similar prohibitions from other states. Those cases are expected to answer the question left unresolved after Bruen: may states prohibit firearms that are among the most commonly owned rifles in America, or does the Second Amendment prevent such bans altogether? The Court’s eventual answer will determine whether the Third Circuit’s decision becomes the governing rule nationwide or is short-lived.
Although the judges unanimously agreed that the case raised issues of extraordinary importance, they did not all arrive at the result by the same path. Several judges filed concurring opinions explaining their own understanding of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. Those concurrences reveal that, even among judges who agreed New Jersey’s laws are unconstitutional, there remains an ongoing debate over how courts should evaluate historical evidence and apply Bruen to modern firearm regulations. Their separate opinions may prove influential as future Second Amendment cases continue to work their way through the federal courts.
The dissent offered a fundamentally different perspective. It argued that the majority placed too much emphasis on the popularity of AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines while giving too little weight to the State’s authority to address modern public safety concerns. In the dissent’s view, history supports allowing legislatures greater flexibility to regulate particularly dangerous weapons, even if they are commonly owned today. That disagreement illustrates why this issue has become one of the most closely watched constitutional debates in the country.
Whatever one’s views on gun policy, the importance of Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs cannot be overstated. The Third Circuit has not simply invalidated two longstanding New Jersey firearm restrictions—it has reaffirmed that constitutional rights are measured by the text and history of the Constitution, not by contemporary policy preferences. Whether that principle ultimately prevails will almost certainly be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Until then, this case stands as one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions in decades.
Christopher D. Adams is a partner in McCarter & English’s Newark office, where his practice focuses on criminal defense, internal investigations, attorney ethics matters, and complex commercial litigation. He can be reached at cadams@mccarter.com.
Reprinted with permission from the July 24, 2026 edition of the “New Jersey Law Journal” © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.