By: Matthew Polyak

A federal judge on Tuesday, July 30th, ruled that New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional.

In a 69-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan reasoned that he ruled against the ban due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent pro-Second Amendment decisions.

Judge Sheridan wrote:

“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. For these reasons and those below, the AR-15 Provision of Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional.”

The decision does not ban guns that are similar in nature, such as the AR-70 or the BM59, as he only heard arguments regarding the AR-15.

One of those recent Supreme Court decisions, which Judge Sheridan noted influenced him, was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

According to Oyez:

 “The state of New York requires a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.”

The question posed was:

“Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?”

The Supreme Court ruled that:

“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it. While some “sensitive places” restrictions might be appropriate, Manhattan is not a “sensitive place.” Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.”

The Bruen decision proved to be monumental because it has become a precedent case for specific Second Amendment lawsuits, as seen on Tuesday by Judge Sheridan.

Second Amendment advocates and state attorneys both plan on appealing the ruling, which delays the ordering of the ban for 30 days.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement:

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation… We look forward to pressing our arguments on appeal.”

Meanwhile, Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs also released a statement:

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

It should also be noted that Judge Sheridan ruled that a ban on higher-capacity magazines was constitutional, arguing that mass shootings influenced that specific judgment.

These decisions come as New Jersey’s Democrat Governor Phil Murphy continues to crack down on guns in the state. Appeals are expected to begin shortly.

Sources

• abcnews.com
• oyez.org
• fox29.com
• supremecourt.gov
• apnews.com
• publichealth.jhu.edu
• gifford.org
• dailywire.com
• whyy.org
• firearmspolicy.org
• reasons.com