Third Circuit Becomes First Federal Appeals Court to Strike Down a State Assault Weapons Ban

On July 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc — meaning the case was heard by the full court rather than the usual three-judge panel — held that New Jersey's ban on "assault firearms" and its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds both violate the Second Amendment. The vote was 10–5. The full set of opinions, concurrences, and dissents runs roughly 192 pages.

This is the first time a federal appeals court sitting en banc has struck down a state ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines. Every other circuit to reach the question has gone the other way.

The timing significantly increases the decision's national importance. Seventeen days earlier, on June 30, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating them to decide whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform rifles — a case I wrote about when the cert grant came down. Argument is expected this fall.

So the Third Circuit has answered, for three states, the question the Supreme Court is about to answer for the nation. Here is what the ruling does, when it takes effect, and what it does not do.

A note on terminology: supporters typically refer to magazines holding more than ten rounds as standard-capacity magazines, because they are the factory configuration for many common firearms, while statutes and courts generally define them as large-capacity magazines. This article uses the statutory term when describing what the law does and the neutral description — magazines over ten rounds — where possible.

What the Court Actually Held

The litigation consolidated three challenges to New Jersey's assault firearms law. The Firearms Policy Coalition, with plaintiffs Mark Cheeseman and Timothy Connolly, filed the day Bruen was decided in June 2022. The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs — the NRA's state affiliate — filed a week later with individual members. The district court consolidated them.

In July 2024, U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan issued a split decision that satisfied nobody. He held the "assault firearm" ban unconstitutional, but only as applied to the Colt AR-15 for self-defense in the home. He upheld the large-capacity magazine ban against both Second Amendment and Takings Clause challenges. Both sides appealed, and the Third Circuit took the case en banc rather than routing it to a three-judge panel — a signal in itself.

Writing for the majority, Judge Arianna Freeman applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and reached three conclusions.

On semi-automatic rifles, the court went further than the district court. It agreed New Jersey's ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment, but held the record supported the same result for the entire class of semi-automatic rifles covered by the law — not just one manufacturer's product. The district court's order was modified accordingly and affirmed as modified.

On magazines, the court reversed. It held the large-capacity magazine provisions violate the Second Amendment, rejecting the district court's contrary conclusion. The reasoning turned on scope: the text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not only those a state chooses to classify as standard capacity.

On the Takings Clause, the court did not decide. Because the magazine ban failed on Second Amendment grounds, the court had no need to reach the takings question.

The alignment is worth noting for anyone tempted to read this as a purely partisan outcome. The majority included appointees of presidents from both parties, and the opinion was authored by a 2022 Biden appointee.

The Date That Matters: July 31, 2026

Here is the practical detail that most coverage buried, and the one New Jersey residents most need to understand.

The decision was not self-executing on the day it issued. The New Jersey State Police Firearms Dealer Investigation Unit notified federally licensed dealers that the Third Circuit's ruling is effective July 31, 2026, and that the State Police are working with the Attorney General's office to develop practical guidance for residents and businesses.

Until that guidance issues and the effective date arrives, the existing statutes remain the operative law in New Jersey. A notification email acknowledging a court ruling is not authorization to disregard a criminal statute.

Two further cautions. First, although the ruling is scheduled to take effect July 31, further appellate proceedings — including an application for a stay pending Supreme Court review — could alter that timeline. Second, New Jersey has signaled disagreement with the decision, and a state that loses an en banc ruling of this magnitude has every incentive to seek further review.

This is the same discipline I urged on Virginia gun owners when a state court enjoined that Commonwealth's ban: a preliminary ruling is not a permanent one, and the gap between a favorable decision and settled law is where people get into trouble.

Why This Ruling Matters Beyond Three States

It creates a genuine circuit split at the worst possible moment for ban defenders. Other federal appeals courts — including the First, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits — have generally upheld comparable restrictions on semi-automatic rifles or magazine capacity, though their reasoning differs. Those courts have variously concluded that the covered firearms are unusually dangerous, not commonly used for self-defense, or sufficiently close to military weapons to fall outside Second Amendment protection. The Third Circuit rejected that approach. New Jersey's Attorney General said as much in criticizing the ruling, noting that every other federal circuit to consider the issue came out differently.

It reaches magazines, which the Supreme Court has not yet taken up. The Court held over the large-capacity magazine petitions — including Duncan and Gator's — when it granted the rifle cases. So while Viramontes and Grant v. Higgins will resolve the rifle question, the magazine capacity question remains open at the national level. The Third Circuit's holding that the Second Amendment's text covers all magazines is a substantive contribution to a fight not yet before the Justices.

It gives the Supreme Court a fully developed contrary analysis. When the Court hears argument this fall, it will have a 192-page en banc opinion from a federal appeals court explaining why these bans fail Bruen — plus five dissenting judges explaining why they do not. That kind of ventilated disagreement sharpens Supreme Court decision-making.

What This Does Not Change

Maryland. Maryland's firearms restrictions are unaffected. Maryland sits in the Fourth Circuit, which is not bound by Third Circuit precedent. Separately, Maryland's SB 334 handgun restrictions — the so-called "Glock ban" — remain on their own track, with litigation ongoing and the January 1, 2027 effective date unchanged by anything the Third Circuit did.

Virginia. Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit as well. The state-court injunction against Virginia's "assault firearm" ban rests on state proceedings, not on this ruling, and its scope remains contested.

Every other state with a ban. California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, and the rest are unaffected until either their own circuit rules or the Supreme Court decides Viramontes.

Federal firearms offenses. A state-law victory does not touch federal law. Federal firearms offenses unrelated to the challenged state statutes — including the prohibited-person provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — remain fully enforceable in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, exactly as before.

NFA obligations. Nothing here touches the National Firearms Act. A rifle lawful to possess under state law after July 31 is still subject to the NFA if its configuration brings it within the Act — barrel length, overall length, and the rest. A favorable state-ban ruling does not convert an unregistered short-barreled rifle into a lawful firearm. Federal and state restrictions operate independently, and I have written before about why an approved federal form does not override a state ban.

What Comes Next

New Jersey's options include seeking Supreme Court review or a stay. Given that the Court has already granted certiorari on the core rifle question and is holding the magazine petitions, the most likely outcome is that the Justices' decision in Viramontes and Grant v. Higgins — expected by mid-2027 — will effectively control, and this ruling may be revisited in its light.

That creates an unusual interim period in the Third Circuit: roughly a year in which New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware may operate under a rule that could be reinforced or displaced by the Supreme Court. If you are in those states, the prudent posture is to follow the law as it stands after the effective date and the state's guidance, while recognizing that the national answer is still coming.

The Bottom Line

This is a significant ruling and a genuine first. A federal appeals court sitting en banc held that a state cannot ban an entire class of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, and cannot cap magazines at ten rounds, consistent with the Second Amendment.

But it is a ruling with a date on it, a geographic boundary around it, and a Supreme Court case sitting on top of it. It is scheduled to take effect July 31, 2026. It binds three states. And the Justices will address the same question for the whole country within the year.

If you are in New Jersey, wait for the effective date and the state's guidance before changing anything about what you own or how you store it. If you are in Maryland or Virginia, this ruling is a useful signal about where the doctrine may be heading — not a change in the law governing you.

Related reading: for the Supreme Court case that will decide the rifle question nationally, see The Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Question. For the parallel fight over Virginia's ban — and why a preliminary injunction is not settled law — see Virginia's Assault Firearms Ban.