By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: Monday, July 20 orders list did not hold any Second Amendment items of interest; United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: A great win from United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the three lawsuit grouping regarding so-called “assault weapons” and Large Capacity magazines: both bans on assault weapons and Large Capacity Magazines violate the Second Amendment; District Court
State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., Case No. 2:24‑cv‑00089‑Z: Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division: On June 12, the court entered final judgment, vacating the entire “engaged in the business” rule nationwide and dissolving the preliminary injunction. Now DOJ filed this opposed Rule 59(e) motion on July 10, asking the Judge to change is opinion.
SCOTUS
Although SCOTUS is on its summer recess, summer order lists were scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 20; Monday, August 17; and Friday, Sept. 4. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.
US Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Blake Ellman; Mark Weinberg v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al.; D.C. Case No. 1:18-cv-10507
Mark Cheeseman; Timothy Connelley; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (Appellants in No. 24-2415) v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al.; (D.C. 1:22-cv-04360);
Blake Ellman; Thomas Rogers; Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Mark Weinberg (Appellants in No. 24-2506) v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al.; (D.C. 1:22-cv-04397)
Argued before Merits Panel July 1, 2025,
Argued en banc Oct. 15, 2025,
Decided July 17, 2026
Opinion of the Court
“New Jersey criminalizes the possession of a class of weapons that the State labels “assault firearms.” The State also restricts the possession of what it labels “large capacity ammunition magazines” (LCMs), which it currently defines as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. We will refer to those laws as the “Assault Firearm Provisions” and the “LCM Provisions,” respectively.
“In three separate lawsuits, gun owners and groups advocating for gun rights challenged both laws under the Second Amendment. One of those lawsuits also challenged the LCM Provisions under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The District Court consolidated the three cases and resolved them on cross-motions for summary judgment.
“When it addressed the Assault Firearm Provisions, the District Court focused its analysis on one brand and model of prohibited firearm: the Colt AR-15. It determined that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. When it turned to the LCM Provisions, it held that the law does not violate the Second Amendment or the Takings Clause.
“Applying the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), we agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles.
We will AFFIRM that part of the order as modified. The LCM Provisions also violate the Second Amendment, so we will REVERSE the District Court’s order with respect to those. Because the LCM Provisions violate the Second Amendment, we need not address the Takings Clause challenge.
“We will REMAND these matters to the District Court for further proceedings, including for resolution of the Second Amendment challenge to the other models and types of firearms covered by the Assault Firearm Provisions.”
Analysis (based on the video by Mark Smith)
Framework: Bruen’s two‑step test
- The court expressly applies Bruen’s two‑step methodology: (1) whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct; and, if so, (2) whether the government proves that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- At step one, it treats “keep” and “bear” by reference to their ordinary founding‑era meaning (possess, carry) and asks whether the items regulated are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, following Heller’s definitional approach.
Heller: “Arms in common use” and “dangerous and unusual”
- Relying on Heller, the court reiterates that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes and permits regulation of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
- It treats “in common use” and “dangerous and unusual” as historically grounded limitations that belong at Bruen step two (history and tradition), not at the threshold text stage, emphasizing that once an item is an “arm,” the burden shifts to the state to show a historical analogue for a ban.
Step One: AR‑15s and magazines as “arms”
- Semi‑automatic rifles / AR‑15‑type rifles
- The court holds that semi‑automatic rifles, including AR‑15–style firearms, are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment because they are bearable weapons, commonly possessed, and used for lawful purposes such as self‑defense, hunting, and sport.
- It agrees with the district court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR‑15s violates the Second Amendment, then expands the relief to the full class of semi‑automatic rifles covered by the “assault firearm” provisions.
- Magazines over 10 rounds
- The court likewise holds that detachable magazines, including those capable of holding more than 10 rounds, qualify as “arms” or integral components of arms protected by the Second Amendment, because they are necessary to operate many common firearms and are themselves widely possessed for lawful purposes.
- New Jersey’s characterization of these as outside the Second Amendment because of capacity is rejected; the court notes Bruen and Heller do not confine protection to what a legislature labels “standard capacity.”
This is a great win for the Second Amendment and it is most certainly exceptional because it occurred in New Jersey.
District Court
State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., Case No. 2:24‑cv‑00089‑Z: Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.
After ATF issued its 2024 Final Rule defining when a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms to implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Texas, several other states, and private parties filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas challenging specific portions of that rule as exceeding ATF’s statutory authority.
On June 11, 2024, the court granted a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs substantially likely to succeed on four discrete challenges: that the rule (1) removed any minimum number of transactions as a prerequisite to being “engaged in the business,” (2) turned on a predominant intent to earn a profit rather than actual profit, (3) excluded firearms acquired for personal protection from “personal collection,” and (4) created presumptions to determine profit intent and dealer status.
On June 12, 2026, the court entered final judgment, vacating the entire “engaged in the business” rule nationwide and dissolving the preliminary injunction, but it did so by incorporating and relying on the reasoning in its earlier PI order rather than making new merits findings about other portions of the rule. In the meantime, ATF initiated a new notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, publishing a May 6, 2026 NPRM proposing to revise and partially repeal the existing rule while retaining and amending some sections, rather than discarding the regulatory scheme wholesale.
As a result of the new rulemaking, DOJ filed this opposed Rule 59(e) motion on July 10, 2026 asking the court to correct what it characterizes as a “manifest error” in the scope of the remedy by amending the final judgment so that vacatur is limited to the four specific rule features the court actually found unlawful, relying on the rule’s explicit severability clause and Fifth Circuit severability/vacatur precedent (including Texas v. United States and VanDerStok v. Garland) and arguing that broader, across‑the‑board vacatur is unnecessary to redress plaintiffs’ injuries and unduly disrupts ATF’s ongoing rulemaking. It is highly likely that the coalition of states will reply to the motion and Judge Kacsmaryk will have to rule on it. As of right now, the entire “engaged in the business” rule has been vacated.
