The Garden State’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional.

That’s the finding District Court Judge Peter Sheridan handed down on Tuesday. He ruled the state’s ban on the popular rifles is incompatible with the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s most recent precedents. However, he found the opposite was true of the state’s ban on possession of “Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs)” capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“The AR-15 Provision of the Assault Fireanns Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home,” Judge Sheridan wrote in Cheeseman v. Platkin. “In contrast, the LCM Amendment is constitutional under these same decisions.”

The ruling comes in a case that the Supreme Court remanded for rehearing in 2022 after handing down its landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a history-and-tradition-based test for gun laws. It is also the first federal case against an AR-15 ban to be handed since last month’s ruling in US v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment decision. The outcome could spell trouble not just for New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban, but the dozen or so others throughout the country as court cases against them move forward.

Judge Sheridan, a George W. Bush appointee, made his distaste with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence known in his decision. However, he argued he had no other choice than to follow the precedents the High Court has laid down.

“It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote. “Even so, the Court’s decision today is dictated by one of the most elementary legal principles within our legal system: stare decisis. That is, where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it. This principle-combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation-necessitates the Court’s decision.”

He said New Jersey’s prohibition on AR-15s is similar in nature to the handgun ban that was at issue in 2008’s DC v. Heller, and it didn’t have the kind of historical analogue required for it to pass muster under Bruen.

“Under Heller, while the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, the Supreme Court forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership. (holding the
absolute prohibition of an ‘entire class of ‘arms”‘ that is widely utilized for the lawful purpose of self-defense is impermissible),” Judge Sheridan wrote. “Guided by this decision, and for the reasons below, the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law which prohibits the use of the Colt AR-15 for the use of self-defense within the home does not pass constitutional muster when applying the Bruen standard.”

He rejected the state’s argument that AR-15s could be banned because they aren’t commonly used in reports of self-defense shootings. He said the guns just had to be in common use for lawful purposes, not meet a specific threshold for the number of times they are used in self-defense shootings.

“Understanding our Nation’s historical tradition as one where the right to keep and bear arms was integrally linked with the Founding era fear of disarmament faced by the American colonists in the face of governmental oppression, the right to keep and bear arms seems to be inherently connected with an understanding of the lawful purposes of keeping those same arms,” he wrote.

Judge Sheridan noted there are estimated to be tens of millions of AR-15s in civilian circulation and they are used for self-defense as well as many other legal activities like hunting or sport shooting.

“Plaintiffs need not show that AR-15s are the most popular weapon for defensive gun use in circulation in order to show they are commonly used for a lawful purpose; they need only show that it is commonly used for a lawful purpose,” Judge Sheridan wrote.

However, Judge Sheridan did not extend his analysis to the other guns covered by New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban. Instead, he limited his finding to just the AR-15 itself. He said that was necessary because he had only been fully briefed on that particular firearm and not the other similar guns covered by the law.

“[T]he information presented to the Court focuses largely on one specific type of firearm: the AR-15,” he wrote. “And given the variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents, the Court’s analysis of the Assault Firearms Law is limited to the firearm with which the Court has been provided the most information: the AR-15.”

He ruled the other gun bans in the state’s law would have to be included in a different suit.

“[T]he breadth of this decision is limited by the fact that the remainder of the Assault Firearms Law stands since it has not been challenged,” he wrote.

Judge Sheridan took a different approach to the state’s ban on LCMs, though. He reasoned the magazine capacity limits were not the same as the categorical ban on AR-15s, and also addressed the modern problem of mass shootings. He argued that allowed him to undertake a broader interpretation of historical weapons laws under the Bruen standard and concluded the LCM ban was similar enough to mid-18th-century Bowie knife restrictions to pass constitutional muster.

“A limitation on magazine capacity allows for time during which a shooter may be intercepted, interrupted, or hopefully, stopped. Such a problem-while new to us-is analogous to other safety issues presented by commonly used weapons for lawful purposes confronted by our Nation in the past,” he wrote. “In the past, legislators took action to prevent these societal problems with limitations as the State of New Jersey has done here. This burden on the people of New Jersey’s right to self-defense is comparable to that imposed by these historical laws.”

Judge Sheridan issued a 30-day stay on his decision to give the state an opportunity to appeal. That means New Jersey’s ban on the sale of AR-15s will remain in effect at least while the state decides whether or not to ask a higher court to hear the case.