A federal judge this week ruled that a key provision of New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban was unconstitutional, but he wasn’t satisfied. The decision illustrates how Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent limits the discretion of judges who are personally inclined to support gun control.
New Jersey’s Assault Firearms Act – which the state Legislature approved in 1990 in response to last year’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Stockton, California – prohibits the listing of a specific range of rifle models, and “any firearm manufactured by any name that is substantially the same as any of the firearms listed above.” The latter description includes semi-automatic firearms that accept detachable magazines, according to guidelines issued by New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero in 1996 Rifle, and having at least two of five features: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash hider, or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate one or more grenade launchers. Illegal possession of an “assault firearm” is a second-degree crime, punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $150,000.
In a separate lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan, several gun owners and two gun rights groups — the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) — argue that the rifle ban Unconstitutional. Sheridan’s decision ANJRPC v Platkin Focusing on the Colt AR-15, this is one of the specifically prohibited rifles because it is the model most commonly cited by both plaintiffs and the state.
“The information presented to the court focused primarily on one specific type of firearm: the AR-15,” Sheridan wrote. “Given the wide variety of firearms covered by the Assault Firearms Act and the nuances presented by each firearm, the Court limited its analysis of the Assault Firearms Act to the firearms that provided the most information to the Court: AR- 15”.
Sheridan, a senior judge who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by George W. Bush in 2005, specifically mentioned the “Colt AR-15” several times. But he also pointed out that “AR-15s are produced by several different manufacturers,” including FN, Ruger, Remington, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Wilson Combat, Barrett, Panther Arms, H&K, Lewis Machine, Olympic Arms, Palmetto State Armory and Mossberg. Therefore, his conclusion that the AR-15 Clause is unconstitutional clearly applies to all AR-15-style rifles, regardless of who makes them or what their official designation is.
Before explaining his reasons for reaching this conclusion, Sheridan expressed frustration with the Supreme Court precedent he must follow. “It is difficult to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that certain gun policy options are ‘off the table’ because these guns are often owned and used by radicals for nefarious purposes,” he said. “Even so, the court’s decision today is ours. Determined by one of the most basic legal principles in the legal system: Decide. That is, the Supreme Court sets the law of our country, and as a lower court, I am obligated to follow it. This principle, combined with the reckless inaction of our government leaders in addressing the mass shooting tragedies plaguing our nation, necessitated the court’s ruling.
Despite Sheridan’s personal policy preferences, he believes the AR-15 clearly qualifies as a “general-purpose” weapon for “lawful purposes such as self-defense”—a weapon that the Supreme Court has said falls under Title II’s jurisdiction. case. He noted that Americans are estimated to own about 24 million “AR-15s and similar sporting rifles” by 2022, and highlighted evidence that such guns can be used for home defense.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the AR-15 is highly suitable for self-defense,” Sheridan wrote. “Evidence has been presented to the court that the construction of the AR-15 makes it well suited for self-defense because it is ‘light weight, [has] very slight recoil, and [has] “Good ergonomics”; it’s a weapon “ideal for young shooters, female shooters, and other smaller shooters.” performance. , Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma.
The state argued that those points should be ignored because handguns are a more popular self-defense option and are allowed in New Jersey. But as Sheridan points out, the Supreme Court’s decision in a landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. HellerOverturned a local handgun ban, explicitly rejecting such arguments. “This is not to say … that the possession of handguns is prohibited as long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is permitted,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. “As we’ve observed, it speaks volumes that the American people view handguns as the quintessential self-defense weapon.”
like controversial laws Heller“The AR-15 provision of the Assault Firearms Act effectively prohibits the use of a commonly used self-defense firearm — the AR-15 — in the home,” Sheridan wrote. And below. Heller“clearly prohibiting a class of commonly used self-defense weapons is unlawful.” Sheridan said that given “the Supreme Court’s clear direction on this point,” the AR-15 provision of the Assault Firearms Act is “unconstitutional” and applies to Colt AR-15″ for home defense.
Sheridan reached a different conclusion on another provision of New Jersey’s assault-firearms law that the plaintiffs also challenged: a ban on “large-capacity magazines,” or LCMs. Lawmakers originally defined an LCM as a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, but in 2018 reduced the limit to 10 rounds. 2022 ruling establishes test in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Brunn.
Sheridan acknowledged that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, has considered ammunition a “weapon” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. But he sees a key difference between the LCM ban and the AR-15 ban.
“The LCM amendment passes constitutional muster because, although it involves Second Amendment rights, the provision is consistent with historical provisions in our nation’s tradition,” Sheridan wrote. “More accurately, reducing capabilities is a requirement for firearms This limitation on ownership is not an explicit prohibition that prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. [with] A weapon commonly used for self-defense.
Sheridan pointed out that “detachable magazines did not exist during the founding of the United States,” and “it was not until the mid-1920s that magazine patents meeting the definition of the LCM Amendment began to appear in the historical record.” He added that although the 1860s “Rifles capable of holding more than 10 rounds appeared,” but “the magazine was fixed.” “Although a patent for a detachable magazine was issued in 1864, firearms with detachable magazines did not exist until the late 19th century. Only then is it widely used.”
Sheridan noted that magazines holding more than 10 rounds “did not exist when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791” and were “not in widespread use in 1868,” when the Fourteenth Amendment required states to respect the right to arms . Therefore, requiring New Jersey to “enact a then-current statute or regulation” that closely resembles the LCM ban is patently unreasonable, he said.
exist the bridgeSheridan wrote that the Supreme Court “noted that the current statute may involve ‘unprecedented social concerns’ or ‘significant technological changes’ similar to those that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 or the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 Different. Cause burden” .'”
Sheridan believes the “approach” of the LCM ban is “quite similar” to the scope of historical restrictions on handguns and bowie knives. “The LCM amendments place a burden on self-defense that is comparable to similar burdens historically,” he said. “Like these limitations, the LCM amendments are … limitations that address the safety concerns of our time.”
As for the “reason” for the LCM ban, Sheridan said there is evidence that LCM “increases the lethality of mass shootings.” He noted that magazines holding more than 10 rounds have often been used in mass shootings in recent years, including “all” such crimes from 2019 to 2022.
Sheridan wrote that the “stated purpose” of New Jersey’s LCM ban was to “effectively slow down mass shootings,” and that the restriction “achieved very well.” “Restrictions on magazine capacity reduce the rate at which victims are injured,” he said, and “allow the shooter time to be intercepted, interrupted, or hopefully restrained.” He added that while “such an issue” could ” is a new problem for us” but it “is related to [weapons] Common use…for legitimate purposes our country has faced in the past.
Sheridan decried the “alarming frequency” of mass shootings, but he never acknowledged that such shootings remain rare compared to other types of deadly crime. Based on the common definition of a mass shooting as a public attack that kills four or more people, such shootings account for about 1% of gun homicides. While Sheridan suggested mass shootings were on the rise, the RAND Corporation noted that “the number of mass shootings per year is subject to chance, making it difficult to discern clear trends” and that “trend estimates are sensitive to outliers and time.” Choose a framework for analysis.
Still, Sheridan decried “our government leaders’ reckless inaction when it comes to addressing the tragedies of mass shootings that plague our country,” which both exaggerates the frequency of these crimes and takes it for granted that if politicians try hard enough , these crimes can be prevented. In addition to a lack of political will, Sheridan implicitly blamed the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment “disregards” some gun restrictions. Yet despite these views, he was forced to reject New Jersey’s AR-15 ban.
At the same time, Sheridan was oddly reluctant to expand on his analysis, considering that it would be illogical to ban “substantially identical” rifles and define the category based on any set of characteristics. With or without these features, the rifle fires the same ammunition at the same velocity and with the same muzzle velocity. For example, does it make sense to expect that banning rifles with folding stocks and threaded barrels would have any noticeable impact on mass shooting deaths, let alone homicides in general?
While Sheridan’s concerns about the use of LCM in mass shootings are more valid, it is based on an uncertain correlation. The public safety benefits of banning them are speculative, and Sheridan doesn’t even consider the argument that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without changing magazines may be important in some self-defense situations– Lawmakers took it for granted when they exempted current and former police officers from the magazine.
The FPC plans to appeal to the Third Circuit, hoping to “resolve [Sheridan’s] FPC Chairman Brandon Combs said, “Bannings on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unethical and unconstitutional. The FPC will continue to fight until all of these bans are implemented.” Across the United States be wiped out.
