Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. N.J.
910 F.3d 106
3rd Cir.2018Background
- New Jersey enacted a law (2018) banning possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds (LCMs), with exemptions for active law enforcement and military and a 15-round allowance for retired law enforcement; compliance options include modification, registration (for unmodifiable magazines), transfer to authorized persons, or surrender.
- Plaintiffs (Ass’n of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs and two members) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the law as violating the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, made factual findings (including that reloading causes some delay that can enable escape/intervention), and denied the preliminary injunction, applying intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment claim.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit panel assumed (without deciding) magazines are ‘‘arms’’ protected by the Second Amendment, concluded the ban does not severely burden the core right to self-defense in the home, applied intermediate scrutiny, and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court also rejected the Takings claim (no physical appropriation and owners may modify, register, transfer items) and the Equal Protection claim (retired law enforcement are not similarly situated to civilians due to training and experience).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment: whether NJ's 10-round LCM ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms | Ban is categorical on a commonly used accessory that is important for self-defense and thus infringes the core right in the home | Law targets magazines (not firearms), does not disarm citizens, leaves alternatives, and reasonably advances public safety by reducing lethality and creating reload pauses | Assumed magazines are "arms," but held the ban does not severely burden the core right; intermediate scrutiny applies and the law survives (reasonable fit to safety interest) |
| Takings Clause: whether the law effects a compensable taking | Ban effectively takes owners' property without just compensation | No physical appropriation; owners may modify, register, transfer, or retain in certain circumstances | No taking—neither an actual nor regulatory taking; alternatives preserve economic/useful value |
| Equal Protection: whether exempting retired law enforcement violates equal protection | Exemption improperly discriminates against civilians and retired military without sufficient justification | Retired law enforcement have distinct training and recurring qualification requirements that make them differently situated | Exemption is permissible because retired law enforcement are not similarly situated to ordinary citizens or retired military for these purposes |
| Preliminary injunction standard: whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of success and irreparable harm | Plaintiffs argued substantial constitutional injury and lack of adequate tailoring/evidence for the ban | State argued public-safety interest and record support for fit; district court factual findings support denial | Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success; other injunction factors not met; denial of preliminary injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-step test for Second Amendment challenges)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (intermediate scrutiny for certain gun regulations and state interest deference)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (upholding Maryland 10-round limit)
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding magazine-capacity limits under intermediate scrutiny)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (paradigmatic taking involves direct appropriation; regulatory takings doctrine)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (total regulatory takings doctrine)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection: similarly situated persons must be treated alike)