The full bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine ban.
The case, Cheeseman v. Platkin, is the first case heard by new appointees Jennifer Mascott and Emil Bove. Ms. Mascott was sworn in less than 24 hours before the case was heard, and Mr. Bove took the bench this past July. The addition of Mascott and Bove swung the makeup of the court from left-leaning to a conservative majority. Republicans hold eight seats compared to six seats held by Democrats.
The plaintiffs, led by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), first filed a challenge to the New Jersey law in June of 2022, shortly after the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Bruen affirmed the right to bear arms outside the home and knocked down intermediate scrutiny. The courts could no longer apply interest balancing to Second Amendment cases. They were restricted to the original text of the Second Amendment and the nation’s tradition and history of firearms regulations. Shortly after Cheeseman was filed, another case, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin, was consolidated into the same court procedures.
At the District Court level, a judge issued a motion for summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the law unconstitutional, but that ruling was administratively stayed to allow New Jersey to appeal to the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel heard the case at the Third Circuit, but before a decision could be rendered, the Third Circuit ordered a sua sponte rehearing en banc, meaning the oral arguments would have to be redone in front of the full bench.
During oral arguments, Erin Murphy spoke first for the plaintiffs. Ms. Murphy explained that the AR-15 and “large” capacity magazines are in common use. She pointed to the Heller decision, which said that the Second Amendment protects bearable arms in common use. A judge asked if she was saying that AR-15s cannot be banned. Ms. Murphy confirmed that was the plaintiff’s stance. Another judge asked if they would have to remand the case for other guns. Ms. Murphy explained that the state would have the burden to prove that they could ban the different firearms.
A judge asks if common use is the end of the inquiry. I.e., if ARs are popular, can’t ban them?
Erin says yes. As that is what Heller concluded.
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
Another judge asked what constitutes “common use.” He wondered if it was a fixed number or percentage of a type of gun in the hands of gun owners. Either way, the AR-15 should pass the test because it is the most popular long gun in the country and is legal almost everywhere. Most firearms magazines hold more than ten rounds, with the AR-15 standard capacity being 30 rounds.
One judge asked about whether “dangerous and unusual” is related to “in terror of the people.” It seems like the judge might be referring to brandishing laws or might be referring to people fearing AR-15s. Ms. Murphy clarified that “in terror of the people” laws are “intent-based” and do not deal with the type of arms carried.
A judge asks whether “dangerous and unusual” is related to “in terror of the people.” Not really clear what she means, besides subjective fear (i.e., people think AR15s are scary, so can they be banned?)
Erin responds correctly that “Terror of the people” laws are intent-based…
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
Pete Patterson spoke next for the plaintiffs. A judge once again asked if the number of AR-15s was enough to constitute common use. Mr. Patterson stated that it is the state’s burden to prove that they are not, but highlighted that since there are millions of AR-15s in the hands of Americans, they are surely protected. A judge asked why machine guns are not protected. Mr. Patterson responded that machine guns were not a commercial success in the civilian market.
First question to Pete is what number of guns is sufficient for protection.
He answers it is the state’s burden, but regardless, once you are in the millions, there is protection for sure. Cites SCOTUS cases like Staples and S&W confirming AR15 popularity.
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
One judge said he agrees that 30-round magazines are in common use, but asked about magazines holding over 30 rounds. Mr. Patterson noted that since the New Jersey law bans magazines holding over ten rounds, the state would have to craft another law to deal with magazines holding more than 30 rounds.
The lawyer for the state was up next. He started by trying to pull at the judges’ emotional strings by citing mass shootings carried out by an AR-15, ignoring the fact that most shootings are committed with handguns. The lawyer argued that the “popularity only” approach is the wrong test. He cited Bowie knife laws but failed to mention that those laws addressed the concealed carrying of Bowie knives.
A judge asked how New Jersey can square their argument with the Second Amendment’s purpose of defending against tyranny. New Jersey appeared to use self-defense as the sole reason for owning a gun, with no other lawful purposes included in their reasoning. The judge criticized New Jersey for its omissions regarding various other reasons to own a firearm, such as target shooting and hunting. The New Jersey lawyer didn’t have a good response to the judge’s line of questioning.
The New Jersey lawyer argued that interpreting the law to allow only the banning of weapons that are “dangerous and unusual” is wrong. He argued that the court meant “dangerous or unusual,” which directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. The lawyer for the Garden State also argued that weapons in common use are the only arms protected by the Second Amendment, but not all such weapons are afforded Second Amendment protections.
In the biggest lie of the day, and maybe decade, New Jersey’s lawyer claims he “doesn’t want a world where the test is ‘dangerous OR unusual’, because then we could ban any weapon.”
Hah! They would LOVE exactly that, and their “unusually dangerous” proposed test functions…
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 15, 2025
One judge asked the lawyer if the law is a ban or a licensing scheme. A licensing scheme has a greater chance of surviving a constitutional challenge than a ban due to Footnote 9 in Bruen. The lawyer admitted that the law is a ban, prohibiting the use of Footnote 9 in its defense.
Ms. Murphy doubled down in her rebuttal, but throughout the case, the New Jersey lawyer seemed to be playing defense of the Third Circuit questions. The judges seemed more persuaded by the plaintiff’s arguments than by those of the states, resulting in a long day for New Jersey.
DOJ Claims the NFA Only Burdens “Nonessential Firearm Accessories” In Suppressor Case
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
