1:22-cv-04360
D.N.J.Jul 30, 2024Background
- Consolidated challenges to New Jersey's Assault Firearms Law and 2018 large-capacity magazine (LCM) amendment; plaintiffs seek to possess AR-15 style rifles and magazines for home self-defense.
- Court limited the assault-weapons analysis to the statute's listing of the Colt AR-15 (AR-15 Provision) because the record focused on that platform.
- The 1990 Assault Firearms Law enumerates many semi‑automatic weapons; the 2018 LCM Amendment reduced the definition of a prohibited large-capacity magazine to >10 rounds, with limited grandfathering exceptions.
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions; the court treated much of the record as legislative facts and denied the Daubert motions.
- Applying Bruen, the court held the AR-15 Provision unconstitutional as applied to possession of a Colt AR-15 for home self-defense, but upheld the LCM Amendment as consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition and rejected the takings claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of AR-15 ban (assault firearms list) | Ban on Colt AR-15 violates Second and Fourteenth Amendments because AR-15s are commonly used and suitable for home self-defense | AR-15s are not protected: military-style, unusually dangerous, not commonly used for self-defense; historical analogues support regulation | Court: AR-15s are in common use for lawful purposes; categorical prohibition of Colt AR-15 for home self-defense is unconstitutional under Heller/Bruen |
| Constitutionality of LCM Amendment (magazines >10 rounds) under Second Amendment | Magazines are arms; limiting capacity burdens self-defense rights | LCM is a permissible regulation addressing unprecedented modern mass-shooting lethality; historical analogue and nuanced Bruen analysis support regulation | Court: Magazines are "arms" but the LCM Amendment is consistent with historical tradition and is constitutional |
| Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) challenge to LCM Amendment | Plaintiffs contend LCM resulted in a taking of magazines without just compensation | State relies on binding Third Circuit precedent rejecting a taking and urges summary judgment | Court: Denied plaintiffs; LCM is not an unconstitutional taking and Third Circuit precedent is binding |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess commonly used arms for self-defense in the home; categorical bans on classes of arms can be unconstitutional)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment right incorporated against states; reaffirmed centrality of self-defense in the home)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (when text covers conduct government must show regulation is consistent with historical tradition; requires how/why analogical analysis)
- United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) (applied Bruen framework to permit firearms restrictions for individuals posing credible threats)
- Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att'y Gen. New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018) (Third Circuit decision treating magazines as arms and upholding the LCM under the pre-Bruen framework)
- Lara v. Comm'r Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F.4th 122 (3d Cir. 2024) (third circuit articulation of the Bruen two-step/text-plus-historical-analogue approach)