Video Highlights
- New Jersey assault weapon ban, including AR-15s, declared unconstitutional under Second Amendment by Judge Peter Sheridan
- Magazine limitations on large capacity magazines upheld as constitutional, though deemed incorrect by the speaker
- Court ruling seen as a major win for gun rights, with some minor flaws in reasoning
- Court cited the "in common use" test from the US Supreme Court's decision in Heller to support the ruling
- Speaker, Mark Smith, highlights the importance of the decision and hints at a potential future review by the US Supreme Court
Video Summary
In a groundbreaking decision, Judge Peter Sheridan of the federal district court in New Jersey declared the state's ban on AR-15 rifles to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This ruling came in the case of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Association versus Matthew Platkin. The court's decision marks a significant win for gun rights advocates, affirming that AR-15 rifles are protected arms and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment.
The court's ruling on the AR-15 ban was met with praise from many in the firearms community, including Mark Smith, a proud American gun owner, constitutional attorney, member of the United States Supreme Court bar, and author of the bestselling book "Israel Disarmed." Smith commended Judge Sheridan for reaching the right outcome in this case, even though he noted that the court's reasoning was not without its flaws.
According to Smith, the court's decision was based on the "in common use" test, which holds that if a firearm is commonly used by Americans for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. This test was established by the US Supreme Court in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Court held that handguns, despite being frequently used in crimes, could not be banned because they were commonly used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.
Smith pointed out that the court's application of the "in common use" test to the AR-15 ban was a critical factor in its decision. By recognizing that the AR-15 is a widely owned and commonly used firearm for lawful purposes such as hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense, the court concluded that the ban violated the Second Amendment.
While Smith praised the court for its ruling on the AR-15 ban, he also criticized its decision regarding the state's restrictions on "large capacity magazines." The court upheld these restrictions as constitutional, despite Smith's assertion that such limitations are also in violation of the Second Amendment. He acknowledged that progress on gun rights issues is often incremental and that the fight for constitutional freedoms is an ongoing battle.
Looking ahead, Smith predicted that the case could potentially reach the US Supreme Court, where a more thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Second Amendment rights at stake could be conducted. He emphasized the importance of defending the right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution, and urged supporters of the Second Amendment to remain vigilant in protecting their freedoms.
In conclusion, the ruling on the New Jersey AR-15 ban being declared unconstitutional represents a significant victory for gun rights advocates and Second Amendment supporters. While the decision may not have been perfect, it underscores the importance of upholding the individual right to bear arms and serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle to protect constitutional freedoms in the United States.