“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
Pro-gun groups challenged a New Jersey state law banning assault weapons under the Second Amendment.
What happened in this case?
In 1990, New Jersey passed legislation that criminalized the possession of AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Several pro-gun groups challenged the law under the Second Amendment. A district court struck down the gun ban but upheld the magazine restriction, and the case went to the Third Circuit, where the full court agreed to hear it.
In a 10-5 decision in which Trump judges cast six deciding votes, including by Trump judges Bove, Matey, Bibas , Porter, Mascott, and Phipps, the full Third Circuit struck down both the gun and magazine ban, The July ruling was in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v Attorney General New Jersey. As explained by Biden judge Ariana Freeman in the majority opinion, notwithstanding the harm done by such semiautomatic weapons, banning them did not fall within the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the standard adopted by a divided Supreme Court in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen case several years ago.
Why did five judges dissent?
Obama judge Patty Shwartz led a total of five judges, including George W Bush appointee D. Brooks Smith, in a strong dissent. She wrote that AR-15s and similar rifles should properly fall beyond the protection of the Second Amendment because of their “disproportionate criminal use, military history, and combat-oriented features.” These factors, she wrote, indicate that the AR-15 is an “unusually dangerous tool used by the military and not an arm in common use by civilians for self-defense,” so that they are not “arms that the Second Amendment protects, and the state may ban them.”
Why is the ruling harmful?
The ruling made possible by all six Trump judges on the Third Circuit threatens to have major consequences. New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill criticized it, noting that it would likely make it much harder for the state to protect civilians by keeping “weapons of war” off the streets. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to review an assault weapons ban, which means we may well know more next term. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.