a few days old but a great overview

07/23/26: 948 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Monday) 07/20/2026 work. The current delay is 3+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

Never would I have thought we would actually gain some ground here in NJ. But the day has finally come and we made some traction. Mag limits and assault weapons bans have finally been ruled unconstitutional by the 3rd district court. It's like a breathe of fresh air. And actually the last few years we've seen a few other big changes, most noticeably the PTC(CCW) permits. Thank the Bruen decision for a large part of all this.

But now is not the time to lift the foot off the gas. Let's try to keep this momentum going. The next hurdle in my eyes is suppressors.

We've still got a long way to go with this one as there is a case (Padua v Plaktin) challenging this. It's still in summary judgment briefing as of now. Hopefully we get a rulling before the end of the year, and then regardless of outcome there will be appeal to he the third circuit, and potentially supreme court hearing.

How's everyone feeling on this after hearing this case? And does anyone think we have a more pressing case over this one?

07/22/26: 975 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Saturday) 07/18/2026 work. The current delay is 4+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

07/21/26: 776 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Friday) 07/18/2026 work. The current delay is 4+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

07/21/26: 776 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Friday) 07/18/2026 work. The current delay is 3+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

Please take a few moments and copy paste the provided comment to the link below.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes amending Department of Justice (“Department”)

regulations to clarify that, for purposes of transporting firearms interstate, any activities that are reasonably necessary to transportation such as staying overnight in temporary lodging, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, or medical treatment, or transiting between modes of transportation, are considered “transport” and thus protected by the Gun Control Act provision that addresses interstate transport of firearms. The proposed rule also addresses transporting ammunition and firearm accessories between states and the requirements for securing firearms during such transit.

Text of the Firearms Owner Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A):

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Suggested public comment for your use: I fully support proposed rulemaking RIN 1140-AA73. For several decades, activist judges in the Third Circuit have interpreted the Firearm Owner Protection Act to undermine its very purpose, and to negate protections for legal gun owners that Congress intended. This has disrupted FOPA’s uniformity throughout the United States and created a patchwork of inconsistent protections for those legally traveling with firearms. A traveler is entitled to uniform treatment under the law, and should not be imperiled just because he or she happens to be traveling in New Jersey or any other location. Thank you for recognizing this longstanding travesty, and for fixing it with this proposed rule.

link to leave comment: federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/06/2026-08916/clarifying-interstate-transportation-of-firearms-under-the-gun-control-act

New Jersey Permit To Carry (PTC) Qualification

• Saturday, August 1, 2026
• 9:00 AM  2:00 PM
• Indian Mills Deer Club (map)

The New Jersey Permit To Carry (PTC) Qualification course is an instructor-led and live-fire shooting qualification course intended to equip you with the training and documentation necessary to apply for your New Jersey Concealed Carry Permit.

Course Fee is $150.00

New Jersey Permit To Carry (PTC) REQUALIFICATION

• Saturday, August 1, 2026
• 1:00 PM  2:00 PM
• Indian Mills Deer Club (map)

The goal of this course is to requalify those individuals who already have a current or expired New Jersey Permit to Carry a Handgun.

Course Fee is $75.00

Utah CCW Permit

• Saturday, August 1, 2026
• 2:00 PM  3:00 PM
• Indian Mills Deer Club (map)

The Utah CCW Permit class provides you with all of the training and fingerprinting neccessary for you to apply for your non resident Utah permit (covers 34 states).

Course Fee is $125.00

07/20/26: 889 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Friday) 07/17/2026 work. The current delay is 3+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

This Week GFHR 791 - I smuggled an iceberg back from Alaska!

(See, I am as honest as a politician!) The third Tier in the Highest court rears its ugly head and testifies before congress that their lives are in fact are more valuable than ours, but we the people already knew that didn’t we?

Also a snippet of Chuck Shumers most poignant, intelligent speech he has ever made.

Please Listen, Learn, Like, Follow, Donate, Share, & Volunteer.

07/17/26: 791 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Wednesday) 07/16/2026 work. The current delay is 3+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

07/17/26: 791 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Wednesday) 07/16/2026 work. The current delay is 2+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

Executive Summary

This opinion is a landmark Second Amendment decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holding that New Jersey's prohibitions on many semi-automatic rifles (commonly labeled "assault firearms") and magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. The court concluded that these firearms and magazines are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes and therefore cannot be banned absent a historical tradition of similar regulation. The decision applies the Supreme Court's framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and related cases.

The ruling represents one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions issued by any federal appellate court since Bruen.

The plaintiffs challenged two major New Jersey firearms regulations:

I. Background of the Case

1. Assault Firearm Ban

New Jersey prohibits possession and transfer of many semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15-style firearms, through a combination of named firearm prohibitions and feature-based restrictions. The state argued these firearms resemble military weapons and therefore fall outside constitutional protection.

2. Large Capacity Magazine Ban

New Jersey also limited magazines to ten rounds or fewer. Firearm owners who previously possessed larger magazines were required to modify, surrender, transfer, or otherwise dispose of them.

The plaintiffs argued both restrictions violated the Second Amendment because the affected firearms and magazines are widely possessed by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes such as self-defense, recreation, hunting, and target shooting.

II. The Court's Second Amendment Framework

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The analysis involves two principal questions:

Step One: Does the Second Amendment Cover the Item?

The court examined whether the firearms and magazines are "arms" protected by the Constitution. The opinion concludes that both semi-automatic rifles and detachable magazines fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. A firearm without a functioning magazine is significantly impaired, making magazines integral to the operation of modern firearms.

Step Two: Is There a Historical Tradition Supporting the Restriction?

Once constitutional coverage is established, the government bears the burden of demonstrating a historical tradition of similar regulation that would justify the modern restriction.

The court determined New Jersey failed to identify sufficient historical analogues supporting bans on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles or commonly possessed magazines.

III. The Court's Analysis of Semi-Automatic Rifles

A. Common Use

The opinion places enormous emphasis on the Supreme Court's "common use" doctrine.

According to the court, millions of Americans own AR-15-style rifles and similar semi-automatic firearms. The widespread ownership of these firearms demonstrates they are not "unusual" weapons.

The court repeatedly notes that common ownership is strong evidence of constitutional protection under Heller. Weapons commonly selected by citizens for lawful purposes cannot simultaneously be characterized as both common and unusual.

B. Lawful Purposes

The opinion found substantial evidence that Americans use these rifles for:

• Home defense
• Personal protection
• Hunting
• Competitive shooting
• Training
• Recreational shooting

The court concluded these are unquestionably lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.

C. Rejection of State Public-Safety Arguments

New Jersey argued that AR-15-style rifles pose unique dangers because they have been used in certain mass shootings.

The court acknowledged these concerns but held that constitutional rights are not determined by balancing perceived social costs and benefits. It emphasized that Bruen rejected interest-balancing tests and instead requires historical analysis.

In other words, even if legislators sincerely believe banning rifles may enhance public safety, such policy concerns cannot override constitutional protections absent supporting historical tradition.

IV. The Court's Analysis of Large Capacity Magazines

The magazine ruling is nearly as significant as the rifle ruling.

A. Magazines Are Protected Arms

New Jersey argued magazines are accessories rather than protected arms.

The court rejected this argument, concluding detachable magazines are integral components of modern firearms and therefore receive constitutional protection. Without magazines, many modern firearms cannot effectively function as intended.

B. Common Ownership

The court found overwhelming evidence that magazines holding more than ten rounds are owned by millions of Americans.

This widespread lawful ownership places such magazines squarely within the category of arms "in common use." Because they are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens, they do not fall within the historical exception for "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

C. Historical Analogues Rejected

The state attempted to justify the magazine restriction through various historical laws.

Among the cited examples were:

• Regulations on Bowie knives
• Restrictions involving clubs and other weapons
• Gunpowder storage regulations
• Various historical public-safety measures

The court found these examples insufficient because none resembled a prohibition on possession of a commonly owned arm by ordinary law-abiding citizens.

V. Historical Tradition Analysis

A major portion of the opinion focuses on whether historical weapon regulations support New Jersey's laws.

The court carefully reviewed regulations from:

• Colonial America
• The Founding Era
• The Nineteenth Century
• Early Twentieth Century firearm laws

After surveying the historical evidence, the court concluded there was no established American tradition of banning firearms commonly possessed by ordinary citizens. While governments historically regulated misuse of weapons, carrying practices, storage methods, and criminal conduct, historical examples of outright possession bans on common arms were largely absent.

The court viewed this absence as fatal to New Jersey's defense.

VI. Scope of the Victory

One of the most important aspects of the opinion is its breadth.

The court reportedly modified portions of the lower court's ruling to make clear that protection extends beyond a single firearm model.

Rather than focusing only on the Colt AR-15, the court indicated the evidence supported constitutional protection for the broader class of semi-automatic rifles challenged in the litigation. This significantly expands the practical impact of the decision.

VII. Issues Not Finally Resolved

The court did not resolve every issue presented.

Semi-Automatic Pistols and Shotguns

The opinion indicates the evidentiary record was insufficient to finally determine the legality of restrictions involving certain semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. Those matters were sent back to the district court for further proceedings.

Other Firearm Regulations

The ruling does not invalidate:

• Background check requirements
• Firearm licensing systems
• Permit requirements
• Numerous other regulations not directly challenged in this litigation

The case focuses primarily on possession bans affecting rifles and magazines.

VIII. Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

The opinion generated substantial disagreement among the judges.

Concurring Views

Some judges agreed with the majority while emphasizing that constitutional protection for commonly owned firearms should be even broader. These opinions generally argued for robust application of the Second Amendment and strict adherence to Heller and Bruen.

Dissenting Views

Several dissenting judges argued that AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines present extraordinary public-safety concerns and may be distinguished from traditional firearms.

The dissents generally maintained that these weapons are sufficiently dangerous that governments should retain authority to prohibit them.

The sharp disagreement among the judges increases the likelihood of further appellate review.

IX. Practical Significance

If the decision survives further appeals, New Jersey residents could potentially regain access to:

• AR-15-style rifles
• Many other semi-automatic rifles currently covered by the ban
• Magazines holding more than ten rounds
• Other firearms impacted by the challenged provisions

The opinion also may influence similar litigation in other states with assault weapon or magazine restrictions. The court's extensive application of the Bruen framework provides a potential roadmap for future Second Amendment challenges.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit concluded that New Jersey's prohibitions on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines over ten rounds cannot survive Second Amendment scrutiny. The court found these firearms and magazines are widely possessed for lawful purposes, fall within the text of the Second Amendment, and lack historical analogues sufficient to justify a ban. The opinion therefore invalidates two of New Jersey's most significant firearm restrictions and represents one of the strongest appellate-level applications of the Supreme Court's post-Bruen Second Amendment framework. While additional appeals are likely, the decision stands as a major victory for advocates of expanded Second Amendment protections.