Two Liberal Judges Just Gave the Supreme Court Cover to Legalize Assault Weapons

The 3rd Circuit’s recent decision striking down New Jersey’s bans on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines has sent shockwaves through the gun control debate. On its surface, the ruling appears to be a straightforward application of Second Amendment rights. However, closer examination reveals something more nuanced – and troubling.

Judge Arianna Freeman’s majority opinion was no surprise given the 3rd Circuit’s conservative leanings. The lopsided vote of 10–5 against New Jersey’s laws has significant implications for the Supreme Court. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern noted on a recent Amicus episode, this decision may give the high court greater ideological cover to enshrine a nationwide right to assault weapons when it takes up the issue next term.

Freeman’s opinion relies heavily on her maximalist interpretation of Heller and Bruen, which she applies with ease to declare assault rifles and large-capacity magazines constitutional rights. This approach is striking for its departure from the facts on the ground. As Judge Patty Schwartz pointed out in his dissent, manufacturers have hijacked the “common use” test to flood the market with military-grade weapons, effectively allowing them to define the scope of constitutional protection.

This phenomenon has precedent in the case of mifepristone, where the Supreme Court deemed access to medication abortion not a constitutional right. The inconsistency is glaring: why are assault rifles and large-capacity magazines considered fundamental rights while a woman’s ability to choose her own healthcare is not?

The 3rd Circuit’s decision has sparked debate about the impact of President Biden’s judicial appointments. Critics argue that his elevation of public defenders and legal aid attorneys to the bench has led to this outcome – progressive judges crossing over to support gun rights. However, the reality is more complex.

Many gun laws do have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities and low-income communities, who are more likely to be affected by mass shootings. The 3rd Circuit’s decision ignores these realities and instead relies on the “common use” test as a benchmark for constitutional protection. This raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping public policy – particularly when it comes to issues like gun control.

As the Supreme Court takes up the issue of assault weapons, the 3rd Circuit’s decision sets a troubling precedent. What’s at stake here is not just the right to bear arms but also the power of the people to shape their own laws. The stakes are high, but so is the potential for change.

The Constitution is meant to be a living document, shaped by the people and their elected representatives. We must not allow the gun industry to dictate our laws or our values. It’s time to reclaim our democracy and ensure that public safety takes precedence over special interests. The future of America hangs in the balance – will we choose to stand up for what’s right, or succumb to the forces of expediency?