(DailyAnswer.org) – A U.S. District Judge from New Jersey has declared the state’s AR-15 ban unconstitutional, citing two Supreme Court decisions on the subject. Judge Peter Sheridan highlighted Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) decisions in his ruling, writing that the Assault Firearms Law contains an unconstitutional provision which banned the Colt AR-15 specifically. Any ban on a weapon that could be used to defend oneself in the home was declared unconstitutional under those two case precedents.
Sheridan did allow a high magazine ban to stand, however. The same law outlaws any magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (D) announced his intention to appeal the ruling, meaning the case has the potential to ultimately face the Supreme Court itself. Gun rights advocates also plan to appeal the uphold of the high capacity magazine aspect of the ruling and challenge the continued ban of other brands of semi-automatic rifles.
The split ruling was simultaneously hailed and hated by folks from both sides of the aisle for different reasons. The 1990 state law outlawed over 60 different types of semi-automatic rifles as well as certain types of shotguns. Sheridan focused his ruling on the Colt AR-15 specifically, as the weapon was highly discussed in court filings.
Sheridan highlighted that Bruen (2022) destroyed any categorical ban on weapons commonly used for home defense. The ruling was incredibly damaging to a number of weapons bans in Democrat-controlled states across the board.
Sheridan was clearly well-aware of mass media campaigns inspired by mass shootings which he discussed in his ruling. He highlighted that the weapons have been used “for evil purposes,” but despite that the Supreme Court has clearly enunciated the law which he’s “bound to follow.”
Sheridan discussed the fact that most mass shooters used magazines with higher capacities which is why he left that provision in place. He elaborated his belief that the lower the capacity the magazine available, the greater the probability a theoretical bad actor with a rifle could be interrupted.
The plaintiffs in the case also found the decision’s limitations “unusual” and plan to appeal to expand the same rationale applied to the Colt AR-15 to other brands of semi-automatic rifles.
Copyright 2024, DailyAnswer.org
