The Third Circuit just issued its opinion in Cheeseman v. Davenport (linked below). The court found New Jersey’s “assault firearms” statute and magazine restriction unconstitutional. The case was remanded for the District Court for the parties to brief the issue of whether the statutes withstand a Bruen analysis. This Third Circuit ruling is not binding on the Ninth Circuit or any California court. However, the New Jersey statute “assault firearms” statute seems similar to California’s “assault weapon” statute because both include a features list.
[Edit: reading the opinion more, New Jersey is both more and less restrictive than California. There, there’s an outright ban (more restrictive) with a court process to get special approval (less restrictive); here, there’s the whole featureless and fixed-mag exception (less restrictive) but not avenue to get permission for standard assault rifle configuration (more restrictive).]
[Edit: reading the opinion more, New Jersey is both more and less restrictive than California. There, there’s an outright ban (more restrictive) with a court process to get special approval (less restrictive); here, there’s the whole featureless and fixed-mag exception (less restrictive) but not avenue to get permission for standard assault rifle configuration (more restrictive).]
Last edited:
