Landmark Third Circuit Ruling Strikes Down NJ Assault Weapons Ban – What It Means for Washington’s HB 1240

Landmark Third Circuit Ruling Strikes Down NJ Assault Weapons Ban – What It Means for Washington’s HB 1240

Posted by LIMITLESS AMERICA on Jul 17th 2026

On July 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a historic 10-5 decision holding that New Jersey’s bans on “assault firearms” (including AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles) and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

This marks the first time a federal appeals court has invalidated a state assault-weapons ban under the Supreme Court’s framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The ruling directly applies Bruen’s text-and-history test and rejects the government’s attempts to ban an entire class of commonly owned firearms by legislative label or claims of “unusual dangerousness.”Key Holdings from the Court’s Opinion. The majority opinion (authored in relevant part by the en banc court) made several clear, forceful statements:
“We therefore hold that New Jersey’s complete prohibition on the possession of semi-automatic rifles runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s protections.”
The court expanded the district court’s narrower ruling (which had struck down only the Colt AR-15 ban) to cover the full class of semiautomatic rifles:
“We agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles.”
On the textual prong of Bruen, the court found the plain text covers these firearms:
“The textual analysis is straightforward. ... They are [Arms]. ... The Constitution thus ‘presumptively protects’ individuals’ right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.”
The court emphasized that these rifles are in common use for lawful purposes:
“The evidence shows that they are [in common use]. The District Court found that there are around 24 million AR-15s and similar sports weapons in circulation... The record tells another story. The District Court found that these weapons are used for lawful purposes including self-defense, target shooting, hunting, and pest control, and that their build and design features, such as their mild recoil, ergonomics, and accuracy make them ‘a good choice for self-defense.’”
The court rejected New Jersey’s attempt to justify the ban through the “assault firearm” label or modern policy arguments about danger:
“Bans on weapons in common use for lawful purposes are unlawful.”
On large-capacity magazines (LCMs), the court was equally direct:
“Because magazines are required to operate many firearms, they are ‘Arms’ within the text of the Second Amendment—even when they can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.”
“We next ask whether LCMs are in common use for lawful purposes. They are. ... Based on the data before us, we are assured that LCMs (as defined by New Jersey law) are in common use for lawful purposes.”
“The State has not carried that burden [of showing consistency with historical tradition]. ... New Jersey’s LCM Provisions violate the Second Amendment.”
The court applied Bruen rigorously, requiring the government to prove the restrictions are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation — not merely that they advance public safety or target weapons the legislature dislikes.
How Washington’s HB 1240 Uses the Exact Same Tactics Washington’s House Bill 1240 (enacted in 2023) employs virtually identical strategies to New Jersey’s now-invalidated laws. HB 1240 prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of “assault weapons.” It defines “assault weapon” through a combination of:
  • Specific named firearms (including many AR-15 variants and similar semiautomatic rifles)
  • Feature-based tests (e.g., a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has one or more listed features such as a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, etc.)
  • Overall length restrictions on semiautomatic rifles
It also builds on Washington’s earlier magazine restrictions. Existing owners may keep their firearms (grandfathering), but new sales and transfers are banned — effectively freezing the market for these commonly owned arms.This is the same core approach rejected by the Third Circuit:
  • Targeting a broad class of semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes (self-defense, hunting, sport shooting).
  • Using legislative labels (“assault weapon”) and feature lists rather than objective criteria tied to historical tradition.
  • Attempting to justify the ban through modern policy concerns about “dangerousness” or mass shootings, without demonstrating a relevant historical analogue under Bruen.
The Third Circuit made clear that the “how” and “why” of such bans matter. A de facto prohibition on an entire class of arms in common use, justified primarily by contemporary safety preferences or the “assault weapon” moniker, fails constitutional scrutiny. Washington’s HB 1240 rests on the same foundation. Why This Ruling Matters Nationwide. This decision reinforces that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.” It protects the arms Americans actually own and use for lawful purposes today — not just those that existed in 1791. It rejects the notion that legislatures can simply rename common firearms and ban them wholesale. For Washington gun owners and advocates, the ruling provides powerful precedent and reasoning. Challenges to HB 1240 (and similar laws) can now point directly to the Third Circuit’s analysis of Bruen’s two steps, the protection of semiautomatic rifles in common use, the rejection of feature-based bans, and the treatment of magazines as “Arms.”Join the FightAt Limitless America, we believe in defending the full scope of the Second Amendment — in the courtroom, in the legislature, and in the public square. The Third Circuit’s ruling is a significant step forward, but the battle continues in states like Washington that have adopted these unconstitutional restrictions.Stay informed. Support legal challenges. Exercise your rights responsibly.The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people — not to the government’s ever-shifting list of disfavored firearms.Sources.
Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey (3d Cir. en banc, July 17, 2026) (majority opinion). Washington HB 1240 (2023).