First Circuit Backs Massachusetts Gun Ban While Third Circuit Rejected New Jersey's
The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Massachusetts' assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban in a three-judge decision issued just days after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down New Jersey's nearly identical restrictions. The split decision reveals deepening conflict among federal appellate courts on the constitutionality of state-level modern rifle bans following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established a new framework requiring historical grounding for gun regulations.
Key Details
- The First Circuit panel upheld Massachusetts' ban on rifles and magazines defined as "assault weapons," rejecting constitutional challenges that cited the Third Circuit's recent decision.
- The Third Circuit had just ruled that New Jersey's assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban violated the Second Amendment, finding insufficient historical precedent under Bruen.
- The two decisions create conflicting precedent across the Second Circuit (covering Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico) and Third Circuit (covering New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virgin Islands) jurisdictions.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Gun owners in Massachusetts face a harder legal landscape than those in New Jersey and Pennsylvania as a result of this split. The First Circuit's decision means AR-15s, AR-10s, and other modern sporting rifles remain illegal in Massachusetts regardless of the Third Circuit's conflicting ruling. Massachusetts residents cannot legally own or transfer these firearms within state lines. For gun owners considering relocation, this decision reinforces that state-level bans remain enforceable in certain circuits. Competitors and hunters who travel between states must verify which firearms are legal in each jurisdiction. The split also signals that Bruen challenges to state bans will likely reach the Supreme Court again, making this an unstable legal terrain for the next 12-24 months.
DownRange Analysis
The First Circuit's decision contradicts the Third Circuit's reasoning without addressing it directly, suggesting circuit courts are interpreting Bruen's historical test differently. Massachusetts' approach appears to survive by arguing historical precedent for regulating dangerous weapons, while New Jersey failed to convince the Third Circuit of the same logic. This split almost guarantees Supreme Court intervention, but gun owners cannot rely on that relief in the immediate term. The practical takeaway: Massachusetts' ban remains enforceable law today. Residents should consult local counsel before any modern rifle purchase or transfer. The conflict between circuits strengthens the case for eventual SCOTUS review, but that relief is months or years away.
