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.
It doesn’t matter. They will be heard together. The court does not care which one is the Appellant and which the Cross-Appellant.
Neat, haven’t seen too many situations where both would want to.
sad
very similar to the AWB of the nineties
“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.
my ass it is still in our house. nobody moved thier shit
I got my stuff a long time ago because I could see what was coming. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
Not joking, for real, Fuck ’em!
“… 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.
Typical case of the magical variability in effectiveness of full-capacity magazines. They’re some how both effective enough to make mass shootings so much worse that they need to be restricted, but also so ineffective that banning the average citizen from having them doesn’t impair their 2nd Amendmemt rights.
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…
Possum is watching this one closely.
I said it once, but it disappeared, so I will say it again – intentional
incompetence strikes again…
And obvious incompetence.
An actual judge wrote this? Shameful. I doubt that there is a single civil liberty, from freedom of speech to the protection against arbitrary search, that has not been at some point exploited by bad actors to evil ends. Nor is there a single policy choice “taken off the table”, from Bills of Attainder to Ex-post-facto laws, that could not in some circumstances be used to curb those same bad actors.
But history has shown us that sometimes the State is the bad actor, and that moreover imbuing that State with unlimited power entices bad actors into its ranks like rotting meat draws flies. Any judge who could write dreck like this ought to hang up his robe, if not cancel his voter registration.
I will give him some measure of credit. If as a judge your personal ideology always aligns with your rulings, you are almost certainly not doing your job correctly.
No, thank you; no credit for the utter hack denying people their Constitutional rights.
Whiney judge: “The Supreme Court made me do it, please don’t ban me from the weekly cocktail party at the Democrat Country Club.”
Would this be compliant? A 20 round magazine that allows you to fire only 10 rounds, eject mag, turn over & reinsert, access other 10 rounds.
Next comes Washington state where you can own a AR15 but you can’t legally buy one, sell one or buy any parts for it. 24.5 Million AR’s in civilian use in the U.S. That makes it a “common use” firearm, but not allowed in Washington state.
I have mixed feelings about this. I tend to believe that individual states should have quite a bit of latitude in how they run things. Want to live in a more authoritarian state? Go for it, California, New York, etc. are there for you. As long as people are free to move. I know there are serious issues with this position, but a return to federalism might be our best shot of peacefully coexisting with the authoritarians in our midst. Maybe that’s wishful thinking. Authoritarians by nature do not tend to be the live and let live, coexist peacefully types.
Phil Wilson,
“Want to live in a more authoritarian state? Go for it, California, New York, etc. are there for you.”
I appreciate your sentiment at first glance. There are significant problems, though.
First of all, many people have no idea just how authoritarian their current state or a prospective state is. Do we want to require everyone to spend a gazillion hours reviewing the specific laws of their state or a prospective new state? This is the fundamental problem with states migrating to “malum prohibitum” rather than “malum en se” laws. Malum prohibitum refers to the practice where states can literally declare any arbitrary thing to be “illegal”, even things which 98% of the population think should be legal. Malum en se refers to the simple practice that states only declare things to be illegal that everyone inherently knows should be illegal. (Some examples of malum en se laws are murder, rape, theft, assault, and battery.)
There is yet another problem with giving the states wide latitude to be authoritarian: they can change any law and suddenly shift any aspect of a state from permissive to authoritarian. That is incredibly problematic if I moved to a state because they were permissive and then, a few years later, shifted to authoritarian. Then I have to move again (at great expense to myself)? And you could say the same thing in the other direction where someone moved to an authoritarian state because they wanted to live in an authoritarian environment–and then the state becomes permissive.
Unfortunately, there is no simple and easy answer unless we are all willing to embrace liberty with “malum en se” laws only–or an authoritarian state with everything and everyone locked down to the Nth degree. Of course that will never happen, at least not willingly.
Agree with the above, as I said there are serious problems with giving states more autonomy and these are some of them. Also, how would one isolate the economic ruin that inevitably comes with leftists having their way on policy given any degree of a shared treasury?
Indeed, no good choices here. Best case is that the collectivist authoritarian proggies start losing national elections, starting in 2024, but even that will probably trigger some nasty violence from the left. We are in for some interesting times over the next decade or two no matter what I fear.
Phil
Being a state of the United States of America a state is bound by the constitution. Supposedly.
Yes, a return to federalism would require an amendment at this point. And if we keep things the way they are now, enforcing the constitution on some states and local governments would require both political will and actual mechanisms to hold officials personally accountable that we seem to lack right now. But then again, if people in those areas keep voting for the same a-holes, isn’t that kind of on them (putting aside the valid point that the idiots who vote for fascists drag everyone else down with them).
I’m hoping Bob “Goes the Weasel” Ferguson will be getting this crammed up his backside pretty soon.
As far as “States Rights,” sure.
When it DOESN’T run afoul of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (To say NOTHING of blatantly violating the Washington State Constitution.)
Big Win on New Jersey’s Assault Weapon Ban. Or Is It?
Watch an assault weapon ban get struck down, but then reallize that only about 10% of the law was actually struck down. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses that exact scenario in one of the most bizzare rulings ever. This one from the US District Court in New Jersey will leave you scratching your head and wondering, is this even a win at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M27gcTORHVg
The article said “colt AR15’s” does this mean colt branded only or AR15’s period?
“The article said “colt AR15’s” does this mean colt branded only or AR15’s period?”
Likely just the lawyers’ fraternity at work. Vagueness in the law, or rulings, is a profit center.
Comments are closed.