On July 17, 2026, the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held 10 to 5 in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin that New Jersey’s decades-old ban on semiautomatic “assault firearms” and its prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds both violate the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Judge Arianna Freeman applied the text-and-history framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and concluded that the covered rifles and magazines are in common use for lawful purposes, placing them within the Amendment’s protection. The decision is a marker of how rigorously the federal courts within this circuit now police firearm regulation, and it puts New Jersey at odds with several sister circuits that upheld comparable laws.
Background
New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic “assault firearms” traces back to 1990, and the State later reduced the lawful magazine capacity to ten rounds. After Bruen reshaped Second Amendment doctrine in 2022, the plaintiffs renewed their challenge. The district court struck the rifle ban only as applied to the Colt AR-15 and left the large-capacity magazine restriction standing. Both sides appealed, and the full court took the case to resolve the constitutionality of the statutory scheme rather than a single make of rifle.
The Decision
Ten of the court’s fifteen judges joined the majority. The court affirmed the judgment against the rifle ban and extended it to all semiautomatic rifles the statute reaches, and it reversed the portion of the lower court’s ruling that had upheld the magazine limit. Applying Bruen, the majority asked first whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, and then whether the State could point to a historical tradition of comparable regulation. Finding the covered arms and magazines in common use and no consistent founding-era analogue, the court held the bans unconstitutional. The ruling drew multiple concurrences and dissents, with the dissenters, led by Judge Shwartz, arguing that the restrictions fit a longstanding tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons.
What It Means for New Jersey Litigation
This is primarily a constitutional and regulatory ruling, and its direct effect on private civil defense files is limited. For clients on the government side, however, it matters a great deal. The invalidated provisions are now enjoined, and the State faces follow-on declaratory litigation and civil-rights exposure under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including prevailing-party fee applications under 42 U.S.C. 1988. Beyond firearms, the decision reaffirms that the Third Circuit will apply Bruen’s text-and-history test with real teeth, a methodological point defense counsel can invoke, or must anticipate plaintiffs invoking, whenever a New Jersey statute is challenged on constitutional grounds. Because the ruling deepens a split with other circuits, a petition for certiorari is a live prospect, and the Attorney General has signaled the State is weighing its options.
How We Put It to Work
For State, county, and municipal clients, we help reassess enforcement posture and confirm compliance with the injunction while any petition for certiorari is pending, and we evaluate the fee-shifting exposure that accompanies a Section 1983 judgment. For our broader civil defense practice, we treat Platkin as a reminder that constitutional challenges in this circuit rise and fall on the historical record, and we build and preserve that record early. We are monitoring the State’s next move and any Supreme Court review, and we will update clients as the litigation develops.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Sanchez Maselli Trial Attorneys.