Background
New Jersey criminalizes possession of weapons it labels assault firearms and restricts possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The consolidated appeals arose from multiple challenges to those provisions. In the Cheeseman action, individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition brought a facial constitutional claim through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court had invalidated the assault-firearm ban only as to the Colt AR-fifteen it analyzed, while upholding the magazine provisions. On en banc review, the plaintiffs’ developed record focused on semiautomatic rifles and magazines; it did not provide the same evidentiary basis for every pistol, shotgun, component, or other category swept into New Jersey’s statutory definitions.
The court’s reasoning
The majority applied the framework from Bruen, Rahimi, and Wolford. Semiautomatic rifles and ammunition magazines qualify as Arms because they are instruments commonly used for offensive or defensive purposes. The court placed the common-use inquiry within the historical-tradition stage of the analysis and concluded that the relevant rifles and magazines are in common lawful use. The burden therefore rested on New Jersey to identify a relevantly similar historical tradition. The State’s proposed analogues did not carry that burden. Founding-era gunpowder-storage laws addressed fire hazards and required safer storage; they did not broadly prohibit possession of commonly used arms. Later rules addressing Bowie knives or concealed carry regulated different conduct and generally did not establish a tradition of outright possession bans. The majority recognized the State’s public-safety objective but held that historical similarity requires attention to both why and how a law burdens the right. New Jersey’s broad possession restrictions lacked a sufficiently comparable Founding-era analogue. Although the plaintiffs brought a facial statutory challenge, the court tied the scope of relief to the evidentiary record. That record supported judgment on semiautomatic rifles and magazines, but not a final appellate ruling on every semiautomatic pistol, shotgun, part, or related category.
The dissent
The separate dissenting opinions disputed portions of the majority’s common-use and historical-tradition analysis, the treatment of dangerous weapons, and the scope of facial relief.
What it means going forward
The judgment prevents New Jersey from prevailing on the challenged possession restrictions as applied to the semiautomatic rifles and over-ten-round magazines resolved by the en banc court. The district court must implement the modified and reversed rulings and conduct further proceedings on firearm categories the appellate record did not permit the Third Circuit to decide. Because the Second Amendment holding resolved the magazine dispute, the appellate court left the Takings Clause theory undecided. The decision is facial in posture but deliberately limited in remedial scope by the developed record.