On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down New Jersey's ban on the AR-15 rifle but left in place the ban on magazines with greater than a ten-round capacity. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan issued the ruling.

New Jersey's ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional, but the state's cap on magazines over 10 rounds passes constitutional muster, a federal judge said Tuesday. 

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan's 69-page opinion says he was compelled to rule as he did because of the Supreme Court's rulings in firearms cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights. 

Sheridan's ruling left both 2nd Amendment advocates and the state attorney general planning appeals. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days. 

This is a qualified win for Second Amendment advocates and, arguably, for the state of New Jersey. While the decision once more acknowledges the Bruen decision, it also side-steps the magazine capacity issue.

One of the plaintiffs in the case stated:

"Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs.

That's a steady and ongoing fight; Democrat presidential Kamala Harris, like most Democrats, has made banning "assault weapons" a priority while still somehow not being able to supply any coherent definition of the term. Which brings us to the response to this decision from New Jersey's Attorney General:

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement the ruling undermines public safety. 

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” he said.

There is literally nothing about this statement that is factually correct. First, the "...designed for warfare" argument is a canard. The AR-15 as sold in the commercial market has never been used by the military of any nation, anywhere, although the basic platform was the basis of the current U.S. issue M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine - which are not semi-autos but selective-fire arms. The 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle was also "designed for warfare," as was its great-grandfather, the 1861 Springfield rifled musket. This is, as a distinction, meaningless. The AR-15 platform fires a .22 caliber cartridge of only moderate power; most big-game rifles are far, far more powerful, and many of them are likewise semi-autos. 

As for the "weapon of choice" argument, Mr. Platkin isn't even remotely close; the vast majority of such shootings are conducted with handguns, not rifles of any kind.

Advocating for a certain public policy is one thing; doing so while being abysmally ignorant of the facts around that policy is quite another kettle of fish.

See Related: Gun Rights Groups Sue California Over Ridiculous Gun Tax 

Ten Million Gun Owners Aren't Voting. Republicans Better Take Notice.

This decision will be appealed, and almost certainly by both sides. The magazine ban issue, which rankles (rightly) the pro-Second Amendment side will be challenged, while New Jersey will certainly appeal the decision on the AR-15. For now, though, Second Amendment advocates can celebrate a win - even if it is a mixed blessing - and gird themselves for the next round in this never-ending fight.