Assault-style firearms are the subject of two divergent decisions within a week of each other in states neighboring Pennsylvania

Two decisions in one week go in different directions regarding the possession of military-style or assault-style firearms in states contiguous to Pennsylvania.

New Jersey’s AR-15 rifle ban is unconstitutional, but the state’s limit on magazines larger than 10 rounds is constitutional, a federal judge ruled Tuesday (July 30).

A week later, a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Aug. 6, upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms, commonly known as assault weapons.

Here’s a closer look at each decision:

Federal Judge Rules New Jersey’s AR-15 Rifle Ban Unconstitutional

In New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan’s 69-page opinion said he was compelled to rule as he did because of Supreme Court decisions in gun cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights.

Sheridan’s decision left Second Amendment advocates and the state attorney general without a voice to appeal. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, Sheridan suggested that Congress and the president could do more to curb gun violence nationwide.

“It is difficult to accept the Supreme Court’s statements that certain gun policy choices are ‘off the table’ when radical individuals frequently possess and use those same guns for malicious purposes,” he wrote.

Sheridan added: “As a lower court, I am bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, which has set the laws of our land. … That principle, combined with the reckless inaction of our government leaders in the face of the tragedy of mass shootings afflicting our country, necessitates the Court’s decision.”

Nine other states and the District of Columbia have laws similar to New Jersey’s, covering New York, Los Angeles and other major cities as well as the sites of mass shootings such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

“Banning so-called ‘assault weapons’ is immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight until all such bans are eliminated across the United States,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement that the decision undermines public safety.

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for war that inflicts catastrophic mass injury, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this country,” he said.

He added: “We look forward to arguing our arguments on appeal.”

Several challenges to state assault weapons bans have cited the Bruen decision.

A gun rights group has challenged Connecticut’s landmark 2013 gun control law, passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, that bans assault weapons, including some AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. Last year, a federal judge denied a request by the National Association for Gun Rights to temporarily block the law while the litigation continues, and an appeal of that decision is pending before a federal appeals court.

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, particularly under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who has signed into law a number of measures, including the 2018 ban on high-capacity magazines that was the focus of this week’s decision. Other measures Murphy signed in 2022 include allowing the attorney general to use the state’s public nuisance law to take gun manufacturers to court.

Murphy said last week that he found the decision troubling and was optimistic that the “dangerous decision” would be overturned on appeal.

“For too long, these weapons – which belong in a war zone rather than on a New Jersey street – have senselessly torn mothers, fathers, daughters and sons from their loved ones,” Murphy said in an emailed statement.

The state’s assault weapons ban dates back to 1990 and covers several other weapons, but Sheridan focused on the Colt AR-15, citing the plaintiffs’ emphasis on that weapon in their court filings and the law specifying that brand of rifle. The high-capacity magazine bill signed by Murphy lowered the limit from 15 to 10 rounds despite protests from Second Amendment advocates. The bill’s sponsors said the goal was to reduce the risk of mass casualties in shootings.

Federal appeals court upholds Maryland assault weapons ban

In a split decision, a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected arguments by gun rights groups that Maryland’s 2013 law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in May, while the 4th Circuit was still considering it in its entirety. Maryland officials argued that the Supreme Court should defer to the lower court before taking any action, but the plaintiffs said the appeals court was taking too long to rule.

Maryland passed a sweeping gun control measure after a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012. It bans dozens of firearms — including the AR-15, AK-47 and Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle — and imposes a 10-round limit on firearm magazines.

The Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., one of the plaintiffs challenging the Maryland law, said it would ask the Supreme Court to review the case again.

“Our goal is simple: end all bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ nationwide. And we look forward to doing it,” coalition Chairman Brandon Combs said in a statement.

The full 4th Circuit judges agreed to review the case after a three-judge panel heard oral arguments but has not yet issued a decision.

The weapons banned by Maryland’s law do not enjoy Second Amendment protection because they are essentially military-style weapons “designed for sustained combat operations that are unsuitable and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Justice J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“Moreover, Maryland’s law fits squarely within our nation’s tradition of gun regulation,” Wilkinson wrote. “It is just another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons when their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while still preserving opportunities for armed self-defense.”

Eight other judges on the 4th Circuit joined Wilkinson’s majority opinion. Five other judges on the Virginia Court of Appeals also dissented.

Opponents of the law argue that it is unconstitutional because the weapons are already in common use. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Julius Richardson said the court majority “misinterprets the nature of the prohibited weapons to disparage their legal functions and exaggerate their illegal uses.”

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the capricious discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, as applied here, unequivocal,” Richardson wrote.

Wilkinson said the dissenting justices are arguing “for the creation of a near-absolute Second Amendment right in a near-total vacuum,” dealing “a profound blow to the government’s fundamental obligation to ensure the safety of the governed.”

“Arms exchanges would be authorized in what can only be described as a rush to paralyze our democracy in these most dangerous times,” Wilkinson wrote.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown welcomed the court’s decision.

“The Court’s decision today will save lives,” Brown said in a statement. “Access to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.”

The latest challenge to the assault weapons ban follows a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that “seismically changed the law of the Second Amendment.” The 6-3 decision marked a major expansion of gun rights after a string of mass shootings.

With its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices in dissent, the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law and declared that Americans have the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. It also required that gun policies be consistent with the country’s “historic tradition of gun regulation.”

The 4th Circuit previously declared the ban constitutional in a 2017 decision, saying that guns banned under Maryland law are not protected by the Second Amendment.

“Simply put, we lack the authority to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Justice Robert King wrote for the court in the majority opinion, calling the law “precisely the kind of judgment that legislatures are permitted to make without court review.”

The court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge in March. It is one of two Maryland gun rights cases that the federal appeals court heard around the same time. The other involves a challenge to Maryland’s handgun permit requirements.

Separately, a federal judge ruled last week that a 2023 Maryland law cannot prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in bars, restaurants and private buildings without the owner’s permission. However, U.S. District Chief Judge George Russell upheld other gun restrictions in the state law. These include bans on carrying firearms in health care facilities, schools, government buildings, amusement parks, public transportation, race tracks, casinos, museums, state parks and stadiums.

Maryland lawmakers approved the law last year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York state law that was very similar to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” standard for concealed handgun permits.

Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to lehighvalleylive.com.

Senior Reporter Kurt Bresswein contributed to this report. He can be reached at [email protected].