By: Nicholas A. Macri, Esq.
The Macri Law Firm
1719 NJ-10, Suite 123
Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 538-6200
Facsimile: (973) 538-6250
Electronic Mail: Nicholas@MacriLawyer.com
Website: MacriLawyers.com
On July 17, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a landmark decision in Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 & 24-2506.
In a 10-5 decision, the court held that New Jersey’s Assault Firearm Provisions, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(w) and 2C:39-5(f), are unconstitutional as applied to the full class of semi-automatic rifles, and that the Large Capacity Magazine Provisions, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y) and 2C:39-3(j), are likewise unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The majority, writing through Judge Freeman, applied the text-and-history framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), concluded that the covered semi-automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are “Arms” in common use for lawful purposes, and determined that New Jersey had failed to identify a historical tradition of analogous prohibitions.
The decision’s significance should not be understated. It marks the first time a federal court of appeals has invalidated a complete state-level assault-weapons ban under the Bruen standard. It deepens an existing circuit split and makes Supreme Court review in the next Term highly likely. For law-abiding New Jersey residents who possess or wish to possess certain semi-automatic rifles or magazines holding more than ten rounds, the ruling vindicates Second Amendment protection against flat statutory bans.
That constitutional development, however, does not make firearm possession “safe” or legally advisable in New Jersey. The Third Circuit addressed pure possession of the covered weapons and magazines by law-abiding persons for lawful purposes. It did not eliminate New Jersey’s FID-card, permit-to-purchase, or permit-to-carry requirements. It did not in any way relax New Jersey’s strict prohibition on possession for an unlawful purpose under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4. And it left completely untouched the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), and the severe mandatory-minimum sentencing regime that continues to govern any firearm involvement in criminal conduct.
The Scope of the Third Circuit’s Holding
The majority’s analysis followed Bruen’s two-step inquiry. First, the court determined that the regulated items fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. Semi-automatic rifles of the types covered by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(w) and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are “Arms.” Second, the court examined whether New Jersey could demonstrate that its bans are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The State’s historical analogues were found insufficient. The court therefore held the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional as applied to the full class of semi-automatic rifles (expanding the district court’s more limited AR-15 ruling) and declared the Large Capacity Magazine Provisions unconstitutional in their entirety. The cases were remanded for further proceedings on remaining challenges to other models and feature-based definitions.
The practical reach of the decision must be stated carefully. The ruling protects pure possession of the covered semi-automatic rifles and larger-capacity magazines by law-abiding persons using those items for lawful purposes against the flat statutory prohibitions. It does not disturb New Jersey’s complex licensing and permitting scheme. It does not relax the state’s strict, expansive laws against possession for an unlawful purpose. It does not affect other remaining weapons offenses under Chapter 39. The decision remains subject to possible stay, to the Attorney General’s enforcement position, and to near-certain further review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In short, the constitutional landscape for pure possession has shifted. The criminal-law landscape for any firearm linked to a predicate offense or remaining prohibited conduct has not.
The Graves Act Reality That the Federal Decision Does Not Touch
New Jersey’s Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), continues to operate with undiminished force. When a person is convicted of an enumerated serious offense — including robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and a range of other crimes — or of specified weapons offenses, and while committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing after the offense the person used or was in possession of a firearm, the court “shall impose a term of imprisonment which shall include the imposition of a minimum term.” That minimum period of parole ineligibility is fixed at the greater of one-half of the sentence imposed or 42 months (18 months for the one fourth-degree offense set forth under the Graves Act, Aggravated Assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4), or “pointing a firearm”). The statute admits of no judicial discretion to suspend the sentence or to impose a lesser period of parole ineligibility once the Graves Act is triggered.
The New Jersey Supreme Court made the breadth of the trigger clear more than four decades ago in State v. Des Marets, 92 N.J. 62 (1983). Possession alone is sufficient. No intent to use the firearm is required. The legislative purpose is pure deterrence. Sentences under the Graves Act cannot be suspended, and youthful offenders are not eligible for indeterminate terms at youth facilities in lieu of the mandatory adult sentence. Those holdings remain the law.
A limited safety valve exists under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2. For certain first-time offenders, the prosecutor may move, or the sentencing court may refer the matter with the prosecutor’s approval, to the Assignment Judge (or the Criminal Part Presiding Judge as designee). The Assignment Judge then has exclusive authority to decide between two options: a probationary term or a term of imprisonment that includes a one-year period of parole ineligibility. For first- or second-degree offenses, the Assignment Judge must still consider the presumption of incarceration set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d). See State v. Nance, 228 N.J. 378 (2017).
The prosecutor remains the essential gatekeeper. Defendants are not entitled to discovery of other defendants’ waiver files or the cumulative case files maintained under the Attorney General’s Directive for the purpose of proving disparate treatment. Any comparative evidence must be obtained independently. See State v. Benjamin, 228 N.J. 358 (2017). Judicial review of a denial is available, but the standard is ordinary abuse of discretion. The defendant bears a heavy burden to show that the decision was clearly and convincingly arbitrary. The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor or the Assignment Judge. See State v. Taylor, 261 N.J. 440 (2025).
In practice, even a successful waiver commonly produces a multi-year base term with a one-year period of parole ineligibility rather than pure probation. The safety valve is real, but it is narrow, prosecutor-controlled, and structured. It does not convert Graves Act exposure into ordinary sentencing discretion. Simply put, a Graves Act conviction is almost always going to entail serious prison time.
Practical Implications for Gun Owners, Defendants, and Counsel
The greatest immediate risk created by the Third Circuit’s decision is misperception. Headlines announcing that New Jersey’s assault-weapons ban has been struck down will lead some residents, including firearms rights advocates and enthusiasts — and some counsel — to conclude that possession of previously banned semi-automatic rifles or larger-capacity magazines is now without significant legal consequence. That conclusion is incorrect and potentially costly to an extreme degree.
Pure lawful possession by a fully qualified person for lawful purposes may become constitutionally protected against the flat bans. Law abiding firearms owners should still proceed with caution, though, and wait for the State’s response to the Third Circuit’s decision and, most importantly, the outcome of the showdown in the Supreme Court of the United States that is now likely coming next term.
Moreover, any criminal context changes the analysis entirely. Possession for an unlawful purpose under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4, possession during the commission of a Graves Act predicate offense, or possession under any remaining Chapter 39 prohibition continues to carry the same mandatory-minimum exposure that existed before July 17, 2026. The federal constitutional development does not alter the state sentencing consequence once the statutory trigger is met.
For clients, the practical guidance is straightforward. Do not rely on news summaries or social-media characterizations of the Third Circuit decision. Licensing and permitting requirements remain fully enforceable. Any firearm—regardless of whether it was previously classified as an “assault firearm”—that becomes linked to a predicate offense or to possession for an unlawful purpose continues to expose the defendant to the Graves Act’s harsh mandatory minimums. The difference between pure lawful possession and criminal-context possession remains decisive.
For counsel, the decision changes little about case strategy in serious firearms matters. Early, competent advocacy directed at the narrow § 6.2 pathway remains essential. A strong mitigating record must be developed for presentation to the prosecutor and, as applicable, to the Assignment Judge. Requests for a statement of reasons should be documented. Any subsequent challenge must be framed under the ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard articulated in Taylor, with a clear record demonstrating that the decision was clearly and convincingly arbitrary. Comparative claims of disparate treatment face the discovery limitations established in Benjamin.
In high-stakes New Jersey firearms cases, the Graves Act continues to dominate plea negotiations, sentencing exposure, and overall case posture far more than federal constitutional developments concerning pure possession. The layered allocation of authority among the prosecutor, the Assignment Judge, and the reviewing courts requires precise, experienced navigation.
Conclusion
The Third Circuit’s en banc decision is a significant development under Bruen. It is the first federal appellate ruling to invalidate a full state assault-weapons ban, it expands protection for a broad class of semi-automatic rifles and larger-capacity magazines, and it sharpens a circuit split that the Supreme Court is likely to resolve.
These developments do not, however, alter the severe consequences that New Jersey law attaches to any firearm involvement in criminal conduct. The Graves Act remains one of the most consequential statutes in New Jersey criminal practice. Its mandatory minimums, its broad possession trigger, and its narrow, prosecutor-controlled safety valve continue to operate exactly as they did before July 17, 2026. Des Marets, Nance, Benjamin, and Taylor continue to define the landscape.
Informed decision-making requires precise understanding of both the evolving federal constitutional framework and the enduring state sentencing regime. Clients facing serious firearms-related exposure in New Jersey need counsel who understand the limited pathways available under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, and who can advocate effectively within the structured discretion that the Graves Act preserves. Headlines change. Fundamentally, New Jersey’s strict approach to firearms has not.
Table of Authorities
Supreme Court of the United States
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen,
- 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J.,
- Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 & 24-2506 (3d Cir. July 17, 2026) (en banc)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
- State v. Benjamin,
- 228 N.J. 358 (2017)
- State v. Des Marets,
- 92 N.J. 62 (1983)
- State v. Nance,
- 228 N.J. 378 (2017)
- State v. Taylor,
- 261 N.J. 440 (2025)
Statutes
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(w)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(y)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(j)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-4
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(f)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-6
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-6.2
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:44-1(d)