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.
lol.
In a begrudging attempt to placate everyone the government just leaves everyone more pissed off and demonstrates its consistent habit of selectively and half-assedly trampling rights without rhyme or reason.
Way to go. Way. To. Go.
The government f&K$ up everything it touches
The question will be whether the state or the plaintiff appeals first.
Deciding to Split the baby down the middle means the Constitution gets one half and an insane Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide called Gun Control gets the other half.
“New Jersey”. Guh.
Ya know my AR(currently safe in nearby Indiana)has companion magazines of 10 rounds each. All loaded with 556 Green tip for that minty aftertaste.
Need to get the brown tips for when shit gets real.
I got my stuff a long time ago because I could see what was coming. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
“… 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 …”
And so it is now with courts that don’t like the Second Amendment: they only strike down complete bans and leave severe limitations intact.
“And so it is now with courts that don’t like the Second Amendment: they only strike down complete bans and leave severe limitations intact.”
With, “Rahimi”, the SC created a means to evade “Bruen”.
Imagine an exact parallel on the First Amendment:
Government statement: 157 times last year bad actors created and distributed 1000s of flyers with a message that convinced dozens of people to bludgeon their neighbors with large rocks. In order to curb flyer-inspired violence, computerized inkjet printers and laserjet printers are illegal for everyone (except government employees and law enforcement personnel of course). And the courts uphold this limitation on free speech because it is not a categorical ban on the First Amendment–since people can still hand-write flyers.
The fact of the matter is that anyone can abuse any right and use it to harm others. Government should NEVER limit rights simply because some number of people use those rights to attack others.
Note: I was going to make the word “NEVER” in bold but decided against it because that might mean that I am exercising my First Amendment too freely. Thus I limited myself and refrained from making it bold. Yes, that is how wrong the recent court decision is that allowed arbitrary limitations on a right.
So in New Jersey, this judge might let you buy a Ford truck, but not any other brand. As long as it ain’t a BIG truck…