In the ever-evolving landscape of gun control legislation, New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines remains a focal point of contention.
Enacted in 2018 under Governor Phil Murphy, the law prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, with limited exceptions for law enforcement and certain retired officers. This measure was part of a broader package of gun safety reforms aimed at reducing mass shootings by limiting firepower.
However, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections, the ban has faced intense scrutiny and legal challenges. As of October 13, 2025, the ban is still fully in effect, but a major federal court case could soon alter its fate.
Historical Context and the Ban’s Provisions
New Jersey’s magazine limit was signed into law on June 13, 2018, reducing the previous cap from 15 rounds to 10. The statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y), defines “large capacity ammunition magazine” as any box, drum, tube, or other container that can hold more than 10 rounds, excluding tubular magazines in .22 caliber rifles and certain lever-action firearms.
Violators face up to 18 months in prison and fines, though a grace period allowed owners to surrender or modify magazines without penalty initially. The law has been credited by advocates with aligning New Jersey with states like California and New York in curbing access to high-capacity devices used in high-profile shootings.
Critics, including gun rights groups, argue it infringes on constitutional rights without meaningfully enhancing public safety. Active-duty law enforcement officers are permitted magazines up to 17 rounds for personal firearms, highlighting the ban’s tiered application. Post-Bruen, which requires gun laws to be consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation, challengers have argued that magazine bans lack such historical analogues and burden the right to self-defense.
Key Court Challenge: ANJRPC v. Platkin
The primary legal assault on the ban comes from Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, a consolidated federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs, including the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and individual gun owners, contend that the 10-round limit violates the Second Amendment by restricting commonly used magazines essential for lawful purposes like self-defense.
In a significant ruling on July 30, 2024, U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb partially sided with the plaintiffs on the state’s assault weapons ban, declaring it unconstitutional as applied to the Colt AR-15 rifle—a popular semi-automatic firearm. However, Judge Bumb upheld the magazine ban in its entirety, finding that limits on capacity align with historical precedents and do not unduly burden core Second Amendment rights.
This decision was issued in the context of a preliminary injunction request, but it effectively maintained the status quo for magazines while narrowing the assault weapons prohibition. Both the state and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Docket No. 24-2506).
Initially set for a three-judge panel, the court took the unusual step of ordering a full en banc rehearing sua sponte (on its own initiative) before any panel decision.
Oral arguments are scheduled for October 15, 2025, in Philadelphia, signaling the case’s high stakes and potential for a precedent-setting outcome.
Recent Updates in 2025
2025 has seen notable developments bolstering the challengers’ position. On September 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief argues that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes, not limited to self-defense or hunting.
It emphasizes that AR-15-style rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are overwhelmingly popular among Americans, with tens of millions in circulation, rendering New Jersey’s bans unconstitutional under Bruen. This DOJ intervention marks a shift from previous administrations and could influence the Third Circuit’s deliberations. Gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), which backs the suit, hailed it as a validation of their claims.
Separately, in September 2025, the Third Circuit upheld New Jersey’s restrictions on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” like parks and bars in a related case, reinforcing the state’s broader gun control framework but not directly impacting the magazine ban. Legislatively, a bill (S1143) introduced in the 2024-2025 session seeks to strengthen the assault weapons ban by expanding definitions to include rifles with detachable magazines and certain features.
While not directly targeting magazines, it reflects ongoing efforts to tighten firearm regulations amid legal uncertainties.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
As of mid-October 2025, New Jersey residents must comply with the 10-round limit, with no injunctions halting enforcement. The ANJRPC case’s en banc hearing could yield a decision by early 2026, potentially striking down the ban or affirming it, which might prompt Supreme Court review. Similar challenges in other states, such as California’s magazine ban (upheld but under appeal), suggest a national ripple effect.
Gun control proponents argue the ban saves lives by reducing lethality in shootings, while opponents view it as an arbitrary restriction on constitutional rights. With the Third Circuit’s ruling imminent and DOJ support tilting the scales, the coming months could reshape New Jersey’s firearm landscape. For now, the ban stands firm, but its future hangs in the balance.
The New Jersey magazine ban highlights a contentious intersection of gun rights and state legislation, indicative of a shifting landscape in firearm regulation. While the en banc rehearing signifies a critical juncture, the DOJ's backing for plaintiffs sends a powerful message about the Second Amendment's interpretations. Stakeholders are poised for changes that could reshape legality across the nation, requiring advocates on both sides to prepare for evolving legal dynamics. The implications for constitutional rights and public safety remain uncertain, demanding close attention.