The total bench of the US Courtroom of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in a case difficult the constitutionality of New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and “giant capability” journal ban.
The case, Cheeseman v. Platkin, is the primary case heard by new appointees Jennifer Mascott and Emil Bove. Ms. Mascott was sworn in lower than 24 hours earlier than the case was heard, and Mr. Bove took the bench this previous July. The addition of Mascott and Bove swung the make-up of the court docket from left-leaning to a conservative majority. Republicans maintain eight seats in comparison with six seats held by Democrats.
The plaintiffs, led by the Firearms Coverage Coalition (FPC), first filed a problem to the New Jersey legislation in June of 2022, shortly after the US Supreme Courtroom issued a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Affiliation, Inc. v. Bruen. Bruen affirmed the fitting to bear arms exterior the house and knocked down intermediate scrutiny. The courts might now not apply curiosity balancing to Second Modification instances. They had been restricted to the unique textual content of the Second Modification and the nation’s custom and historical past of firearms laws. Shortly after Cheeseman was filed, one other case, Affiliation of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Golf equipment v. Platkin, was consolidated into the identical court docket procedures.
On the District Courtroom degree, a decide issued a movement for abstract judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the legislation unconstitutional, however that ruling was administratively stayed to permit New Jersey to enchantment to the Third Circuit. A 3-judge panel heard the case on the Third Circuit, however earlier than a choice could possibly be rendered, the Third Circuit ordered a sua sponte rehearing en banc, that means the oral arguments must be redone in entrance of the total bench.
Throughout oral arguments, Erin Murphy spoke first for the plaintiffs. Ms. Murphy defined that the AR-15 and “giant” capability magazines are in widespread use. She pointed to the Heller resolution, which mentioned that the Second Modification protects bearable arms in widespread use. A decide requested if she was saying that AR-15s can’t be banned. Ms. Murphy confirmed that was the plaintiff’s stance. One other decide requested in the event that they must remand the case for different weapons. Ms. Murphy defined that the state would have the burden to show that they may ban the totally different firearms.
A decide asks if widespread use is the tip of the inquiry. I.e., if ARs are standard, can’t ban them?
Erin says sure. As that’s what Heller concluded.
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
One other decide requested what constitutes “widespread use.” He questioned if it was a hard and fast quantity or proportion of a kind of gun within the palms of gun homeowners. Both approach, the AR-15 ought to cross the check as a result of it’s the most well-liked lengthy gun within the nation and is authorized virtually all over the place. Most firearms magazines maintain greater than ten rounds, with the AR-15 customary capability being 30 rounds.
One decide requested about whether or not “harmful and weird” is expounded to “in terror of the folks.” It looks as if the decide is perhaps referring to brandishing legal guidelines or is perhaps referring to folks fearing AR-15s. Ms. Murphy clarified that “in terror of the folks” legal guidelines are “intent-based” and don’t take care of the kind of arms carried.
A decide asks whether or not “harmful and weird” is expounded to “in terror of the folks.” Probably not clear what she means, in addition to subjective worry (i.e., folks assume AR15s are scary, so can they be banned?)
Erin responds appropriately that “Terror of the folks” legal guidelines are intent-based…
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
Pete Patterson spoke subsequent for the plaintiffs. A decide as soon as once more requested if the variety of AR-15s was sufficient to represent widespread use. Mr. Patterson acknowledged that it’s the state’s burden to show that they don’t seem to be, however highlighted that since there are tens of millions of AR-15s within the palms of People, they’re certainly protected. A decide requested why machine weapons aren’t protected. Mr. Patterson responded that machine weapons weren’t a business success within the civilian market.
First query to Pete is what variety of weapons is enough for defense.
He solutions it’s the state’s burden, however regardless, as soon as you’re within the tens of millions, there may be safety for certain. Cites SCOTUS instances like Staples and S&W confirming AR15 reputation.
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
One decide mentioned he agrees that 30-round magazines are in widespread use, however requested about magazines holding over 30 rounds. Mr. Patterson famous that for the reason that New Jersey legislation bans magazines holding over ten rounds, the state must craft one other legislation to take care of magazines holding greater than 30 rounds.
The lawyer for the state was up subsequent. He began by attempting to tug on the judges’ emotional strings by citing mass shootings carried out by an AR-15, ignoring the truth that most shootings are dedicated with handguns. The lawyer argued that the “reputation solely” strategy is the unsuitable check. He cited Bowie knife legal guidelines however failed to say that these legal guidelines addressed the hid carrying of Bowie knives.
A decide requested how New Jersey can sq. their argument with the Second Modification’s goal of defending towards tyranny. New Jersey appeared to make use of self-defense as the only motive for proudly owning a gun, with no different lawful functions included of their reasoning. The decide criticized New Jersey for its omissions concerning varied different causes to personal a firearm, corresponding to goal capturing and searching. The New Jersey lawyer didn’t have an excellent response to the decide’s line of questioning.
The New Jersey lawyer argued that deciphering the legislation to permit solely the banning of weapons which are “harmful and weird” is unsuitable. He argued that the court docket meant “harmful or uncommon,” which immediately contradicts the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution in Heller. The lawyer for the Backyard State additionally argued that weapons in widespread use are the one arms protected by the Second Modification, however not all such weapons are afforded Second Modification protections.
Within the largest lie of the day, and perhaps decade, New Jersey’s lawyer claims he “doesn’t need a world the place the check is ‘harmful OR uncommon’, as a result of then we might ban any weapon.”
Hah! They might LOVE precisely that, and their “unusually harmful” proposed check features…
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
One decide requested the lawyer if the legislation is a ban or a licensing scheme. A licensing scheme has a better likelihood of surviving a constitutional problem than a ban attributable to Footnote 9 in Bruen. The lawyer admitted that the legislation is a ban, prohibiting using Footnote 9 in its protection.
Ms. Murphy doubled down in her rebuttal, however all through the case, the New Jersey lawyer gave the impression to be enjoying protection of the Third Circuit questions. The judges appeared extra persuaded by the plaintiff’s arguments than by these of the states, leading to a protracted day for New Jersey.
DOJ Claims the NFA Solely Burdens “Nonessential Firearm Equipment” In Suppressor Case
JP Morgan Boss Says Stockpile Bullets, Weapons, & Bombs
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA teacher and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed folks from all walks of life, and on the Structure. John lives in Northern Virginia along with his spouse and sons, observe him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
