A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment, marking a major setback for gun control advocates. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the decision in a 10-5 vote, striking down the state’s restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This ruling expands upon a lower court decision that had already invalidated New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15 rifles, but upheld the portion of the law targeting large-capacity magazines. The appeals court now concludes that the constitutional protection under the Second Amendment extends to all semiautomatic rifles covered by the state’s assault weapons ban. The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on the constitutionality of similar state-level assault weapons bans. The court has agreed to hear challenges to such restrictions in Illinois and Connecticut, with a decision likely by next summer. The 3rd Circuit’s ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a framework requiring modern gun laws to align with historical traditions of firearm regulation. According to the court, New Jersey’s restrictions fail to meet this standard, as they prohibit weapons and magazines that are widely used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The ruling was authored by Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, and joined by several other judges, including Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, another Biden nominee. Montgomery-Reeves expressed reservations about the timing of the decision, noting that the Supreme Court had recently granted certiorari to review similar cases from Illinois and Connecticut. She wrote that the court’s decision to proceed independently might have been premature, given the pending Supreme Court review. Despite her concerns, she chose to join the majority opinion, allowing the ruling to be released before the Supreme Court’s anticipated decision. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat, criticized the ruling as “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect.” She argued that the state’s restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are justified due to their role in mass shootings and that other circuits have upheld similar bans. Davenport stated that the state is considering its legal options moving forward, suggesting potential appeals to the full 3rd Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. The decision follows a series of developments in the broader landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Since the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to bear arms, and its 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling, which extended that right to the states, the court has continued to expand interpretations of the Second Amendment. The 2022 Bruen decision marked a turning point, requiring states to justify gun control measures by referencing historical practices. This framework has been applied in several cases, including the 3rd Circuit’s current ruling. Other circuits have reached conflicting conclusions on similar issues. For instance, the Seventh Circuit recently upheld Illinois’ ban on AR-15 rifles in Barnett v. Raoul. The court cited historical examples, such as restrictions on Bowie knives, to justify its decision. However, critics argue that such analogies are flawed, as they ignore the broader context of historical firearm regulation and the specific nature of modern weapons. The 3rd Circuit’s decision contrasts sharply with these earlier rulings, highlighting the ongoing divergence among federal courts on the scope of Second Amendment protections. As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court’s upcoming rulings on Illinois and Connecticut will be pivotal. These cases could determine whether states may continue to restrict semiautomatic rifles under the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, New Jersey is expected to seek further review of the 3rd Circuit’s decision, potentially leading to a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Regardless of the next procedural steps, the issue is already heading to the nation’s highest court, where the justices are poised to make a definitive determination on the constitutionality of assault weapons bans.
9 reports
ABC News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 903 days agoA federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's laws banning assault firearms and high-capacity magazines are unconstitutional. This marks the first time a federal appeals court has invalidated a state-level ban on such weapons. The decision contrasts with a recent ruling upholding Illinois' similar restrictions. The court overturned a previous 2024 ruling that had partially upheld the New Jersey law, which restricted AR-15s but allowed limits on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. New Jersey's attorney general criticized the decision, stating it is 'legally incorrect,' while the National Rifle Association hailed it as a 'historic victory.'
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—New Jersey's defense of the law and the NRA's celebration of the ruling—without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both parties involved and does not use loaded language or omit significant context.
Why factuality (95): The article provides accurate details about the court's ruling, the specific provisions of New Jersey's law, and quotes from the attorney general. It correctly notes the significance of the ruling as the first federal appellate court to strike down such a ban.
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting both the court's decision and the attorney general's response without overt bias or emotional language.
The Washington TimesParty-alignedConservativeFactual 95Objective 903 days agoA federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's ban on AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines is unconstitutional, citing the Second Amendment. This marks the first time a federal appeals court has invalidated a state's assault weapon ban. The decision aligns with the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established the 'common use' standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims. The court emphasized that millions of semi-automatic rifles are used lawfully and thus protected under the Constitution. The ruling could influence ongoing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is reviewing similar bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The decision was supported by ten out of fifteen judges on the panel, with a dissent arguing that the ruling diverges from traditional regulatory approaches.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the ruling as a significant victory for gun rights advocates, emphasizing the importance of the Second Amendment and criticizing state-level gun control measures. It highlights support from organizations like the National Rifle Association and portrays the decision as a step in 'd
Why factuality (95): The article accurately describes the court's decision, the voting breakdown, and the reasoning behind it. It correctly cites the attorney general's response and the historical context provided by the Bruen decision.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains balanced, presenting the decision and the reactions from both gun rights advocates and the attorney general without overt bias.
NewsweekIndependentConservativeFactual 95Objective 903 days agoA federal appeals court in the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey's assault weapons ban, which prohibits semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, violates the Second Amendment. This makes New Jersey the first state to have its assault weapons ban struck down by a federal appellate court. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen ruling, which set a new standard for evaluating firearm restrictions based on historical tradition. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the ruling, stating it contradicts previous decisions by other circuits and argued that the ban was reasonable. The case adds to ongoing legal battles over state-level gun control laws, with similar challenges currently before the Supreme Court in Illinois and Connecticut.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the ruling as a victory for gun rights, emphasizing the Second Amendment and criticizing the ban as 'unlawful' and 'contrary to precedent.' It highlights the conservative Supreme Court's influence through the Bruen decision and suggests that the ruling reflects a broader trend of擴
Why factuality (95): The article accurately summarizes the court's decision, noting the context of the Supreme Court's upcoming review and the implications of the Bruen decision. It correctly cites the attorney general's response and the broader national debate on gun regulations.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains balanced, providing context without taking sides, and presents the decision alongside the reactions from both supporters and opponents of the ruling.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 95Objective 907 days agoIn the case U.S. v. Baxter, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Baxter for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This ruling followed the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani, which questioned the constitutionality of applying this law to individuals using marijuana, but left unresolved whether such laws could still apply if there was evidence that the drug use posed a threat to safety. In Baxter’s case, he was involved in a gang-related altercation in Des Moines, Iowa, where he was found with a loaded gun and marijuana. Law enforcement pursued him after a bystander reported his possession of a weapon, leading to his arrest. The court ruled that Baxter’s conviction did not violate his Second Amendment rights, emphasizing that the law applies when someone is actively using drugs while in possession of a firearm.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the issue through the lens of upholding federal gun control laws against challenges based on the Second Amendment. It emphasizes the court’s conclusion that the application of § 922(g)(3) is constitutional in cases involving active drug use, aligning with a pro-law-enforcement and
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the court's decision, the rationale behind it, and the dissenting opinion. It correctly cites the Bruen decision and the context of the Supreme Court's involvement.
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting both the majority and dissenting views without overt bias or emotional language.
The Daily WireIndependentConservativeFactual 90Objective 853 days agoA federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment, marking the first time a federal appellate court has invalidated such a state-level ban. The Third Circuit upheld a lower court's decision regarding the unconstitutionality of the ban on Colt AR-15 rifles and extended this ruling to cover all semiautomatic rifles under the law. The court cited the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, emphasizing historical traditions of firearm regulation. New Jersey's Attorney General criticized the ruling, stating it was legally incorrect and highlighting the state's efforts to address mass shootings through these restrictions. Meanwhile, the Firearms Policy Coalition, a plaintiff in the case, praised the decision as a major win for gun rights.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the court's decision as a 'huge court victory' for gun owners and uses terms like 'authoritarian war on gun owners,' which align with conservative rhetoric around gun rights. The emphasis on the ruling as a 'massive victory' and the celebration by the Firearms Policy Coalition, a右
Why factuality (90): The article accurately summarizes the court's decision, the voting breakdown, and the reasoning behind it. It correctly cites the attorney general's response and the historical context provided by the Bruen decision.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone overall but includes some subjective language, such as 'one of their biggest legal victories yet,' which slightly tilts the narrative in favor of gun rights advocates.
The HillIndependentConservativeFactual 85Objective 803 days agoA federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's ban on 'assault' firearms and high-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment, striking down the restrictions in a 10-5 decision. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, including a judge appointed by former President Biden, held that the Second Amendment applies to all magazines, not just those defined as 'standard capacity' by New Jersey. The state had previously banned magazines with more than 10 rounds and classified AR-15s and similar weapons as 'assault firearms.' The ruling comes amid broader debates over gun control, with the Supreme Court set to address related issues soon. Dissenting judges, including one appointed by former President Obama, argued that AR-15s are too dangerous for civilian use and not protected under the Second Amendment.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the ruling as a significant victory for gun rights advocates, emphasizing the court's rejection of New Jersey's restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment. The language highlights the conservative majority's interpretation of the Constitution and aligns with the positions
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the 3rd Circuit's decision striking down New Jersey's assault weapon and magazine bans, citing the Supreme Court's Bruen test. It provides specific details about the ruling, the judges involved, and the legal reasoning. However, it does not mention the broader context
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information neutrally, focusing on the legal outcome and the court's reasoning. It mentions the political affiliations of the judges but avoids overt bias. The tone remains objective, though it frames the decision as a major victory for gun rights advocates.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 85Objective 7515 hr. ago The Timing Of The Third Circuit's "Assault Firearms" CaseThe Third Circuit's decision in 'Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey' was issued two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in related cases involving AR-15 bans. The en banc court, consisting of eleven judges, ruled that New Jersey's assault firearms ban and large-capacity magazine restrictions violated the Second Amendment. The majority opinion was authored by Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, while Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, also a Biden appointee, joined the majority but expressed reservations about deciding the case before the Supreme Court's ruling. Montgomery-Reeves suggested the court could have delayed the decision pending the Supreme Court's review but chose to proceed anyway.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the decision as a significant legal victory for gun rights advocates, highlighting the alignment of the Third Circuit's ruling with the eventual Supreme Court outcome. It emphasizes the role of Biden-appointed judges in advancing a pro-gun rights interpretation of the Second Amend
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the timeline of the Third Circuit's decision relative to the Supreme Court's cert grant, citing specific dates and the composition of the en banc court. However, it includes speculative commentary about Judge Freeman's potential disqualification from SCOTUS considera
Why objectivity (75): The article presents the information neutrally but includes subjective statements like 'I concur with Ed Whelan that Freeman deserves some credit,' which introduces personal opinion rather than objective reporting.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 85Objective 655 days ago What Has Heller Wrought In 18 Years?This article reflects on the impact of the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to bear arms unconnected to militia service, eighteen years after its ruling. The author argues that despite this landmark decision, the practical implementation of the Second Amendment has seen minimal progress in blue states. While some victories exist, such as the invalidation of handgun bans and changes to concealed carry laws, many restrictions remain in place, including limitations on carrying firearms in public spaces and burdensome registration processes. The author notes that while the Supreme Court continues to address Second Amendment issues, the overall landscape for gun ownership remains largely unchanged since Heller.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the lack of progress on gun rights as a failure of liberal states and emphasizes the limited impact of Heller, suggesting that anti-gun policies persist despite judicial rulings. It uses rhetorical questions comparing Heller to other landmark decisions with greater societal impact
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the Eighth Circuit's ruling in U.S. v. Baxter and references the Hemani decision appropriately. However, it frames the discussion around the broader impact of Heller, which may introduce interpretive bias.
Why objectivity (65): The article takes a clear stance on the impact of Heller, suggesting that little has changed for gun owners in blue states, which shows a biased viewpoint rather than neutral reporting.
ReasonParty-alignedProgressiveFactual 80Objective 704 days ago Second Amendment Roundup: Seventh Circuit Decides BarnettOn July 9, the Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois' ban on AR-15 rifles in the case Barnett v. Raoul, despite the Supreme Court having recently granted certiorari in a related case, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerning the same issue. The ruling appears to align with previous decisions supporting firearm restrictions, though it has been criticized for potentially contradicting established Supreme Court precedents like Heller. Meanwhile, other circuits such as the Ninth and Third Circuits are awaiting further guidance from the Supreme Court before making rulings on similar cases involving state-level AR-15 bans. The Seventh Circuit’s decision has drawn attention for its reliance on older legal interpretations and its apparent disregard for more recent Supreme Court rulings.
Bias read (Progressive): The article critiques the Seventh Circuit's decision as being out of alignment with recent Supreme Court rulings and highlights the potential contradiction between the circuit's interpretation and established constitutional precedents. The framing emphasizes the court's adherence to restrictive gun-
Why factuality (80): The article provides detailed analysis of the Seventh Circuit's decision and its relationship to the Supreme Court's cert grant. However, it contains speculative language about the Seventh Circuit potentially acting as if it were filing an amicus brief, which may not be explicitly supported by the p
Why objectivity (70): The article leans toward a pro-gun perspective, using phrases like 'upholding any restriction on Second Amendment rights' and showing clear favoritism towards the Third Circuit's approach compared to other circuits.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
