Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Coming to you from Washington's premier indoor shooting facility. Of course, that's Security Gun Club right here in Woodenville, Washington. Hey, we're going to get to talk about a ruling. Some people think it's a huge ruling. Some people think it's not that big of a deal. Some people think it's quite disingenuous. I think it's a little bit of all of that. We're going to break it down for you so that you can decide the significance of this ruling. It has to do with a challenge to New Jersey's assault, weapon ban, and high capacity magazine ban. It has one of the most unique opinions I've ever read, and we're going to go through it so that you can understand that in one way, the court was really sticking to its guns. In another way, the court decided to really, really get disingenuous. So today, let's spend a few minutes, let's break it all down and let's talk about big win on New Jersey's assault weapon ban, or is it
Okay, America, this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the case of Cheeseman v Plotkin. Now that is the name case in what is a whole bunch of cases that have been consolidated onto this appeal in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is a challenge not only to New Jersey's assault weapon ban. I know some of you're freaking out because I'm calling it that, but that's the term that the statute uses as well as a challenge to New Jersey's high capacity magazine ban, originally starting at 15 rounds, now down to 10 soon, probably to be two to three. Okay, now here's the real interesting thing. The court, you could tell, did not want to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in any way, shape, or form. And I've come up with a very unique ruling to make sure that for the most part, they did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs with one huge exception.
So the ruling of the court is as follows, and then we'll get to the reasoning behind that. The ruling of the court is, is that the assault weapon ban in the state of New Jersey is constitutional except for the portion that bans the AR 15 platform. That's right. The AR 15 portion is unconstitutional as to the high capacity magazine band. That is totally okay because a more nuanced approach as the court chose to apply it upholds that that is the ruling of the court. Now, you could tell right away, and I said early on, the court really doesn't like the precedent it's having to work with. It really has disdain for the higher courts here, and it starts off, their opinion isn't exactly that way. As much disdain as they have for the Heller opinion, which you will see throughout this opinion. The good news is, is that the court partially followed it.
It is hard to accept the Supreme Court's pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are off the table when frequently radical individuals possess and use these firearms for evil purposes. Even so the court's decision today is dictated by one of the most elementary legal principles within our legal system, stare decisis. And that is true. And stare decisis is a principle which is not followed in the ninth circuit. It certainly is not followed in the seventh circuit. The court here applies stare decisis. What is it? Well essentially means, hey, you got to follow the authorities of the higher courts as the court put it. That is where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our nation as a lower court. I am bound to follow it. This principle combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our nation necessitates the court's decision for these reasons.
And those below the AR 15 provision of the assault firearms law is unconstitutional. The large capacity magazine amendment is constitutional. Now I know you're sitting there going, okay, how can they strike down the AR 15 platform and not strike down the entire ban? It's an excellent question. Well, the court hung its hat on the fact that most of the evidence that had been offered dealt with that particular platform because it is the most commonly owned platform of firearms that fall into this category and used that as the escape hatch as the court put it. Thus, the information presented to the court focuses largely on one specific type of firearm, the AR 15, and given the variety of firearms regulated in the assault firearms law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents the court's analysis of the assault firearms law is limited to the firearms with which the court has been provided the most information, the AR 15.
And so that has led the court because they said they really only took evidence on one platform or firearm, which we all know to be bogus. But the court's summary of its ruling is for the reasons enumerated below the AR 15 provision is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the breadth of this decision is limited by the fact that the remainder of the assault firearms law stands since it has not been challenged, it has not been challenged. That is literally what they are saying here. Okay, and is this a disingenuous argument? It absolutely is a disingenuous position to take. So while we can applaud the court for applying theory decisis and trying to apply Heller, they should also be condemned for the fact that they literally pulled this sort of gamesmanship to keep them from striking down what is otherwise an unconstitutional piece of legislation. Now, I mentioned though that the plaintiffs here have won on summary judgment and when you win on summary judgment, that's a big deal.
As the court put it, a motion for summary judgment should be granted only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movement is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, A factual dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, the court must view the facts and evidence presented on the motion in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. And despite the fact that the court literally could view all the evidence in a light most favorable to the state of New Jersey, they have still ruled that the AR 15 portion of the ban is unconstitutional. Why did the AR 15 portion get struck down? Well, the court correctly cited to Heller, which states a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for lawful purposes.
For example, self-defense in the home must fail constitutional muster. Okay? So a ban on an entire class of firearms is per se, unconstitutional. And even though there's about 60 something different firearms listed in this New Jersey band, the court has carved out with a scalpel only one platform of firearm. Yes, it's a very popular, very common platform, but think about how many other firearms still remain under the purview of this otherwise unconstitutional law. Now, as you go through the court's reasoning and its reluctance to strike down this portion of law, you begin to see the vitriol, the hatred that the trial court here has for the Heller opinion and then for really kind of the hatred it has for individual civil liberties. The court wrote for the reasons stated previously, this analysis focuses on the AR 15 provision of the assault firearms law under Heller. While the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, the Supreme Court forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership guided by this decision and for the reasons below the AR 15 provision of the assault firearms law, which prohibits the use of the cult AR 15 for the use of self-defense within the home does not pass constitutional muster when applying the Bruin standard and whether the court is actually intending on living it to just the cult AR 15 being used inside the home or the AR 15 in general being used inside the home is anyone's guess.
The court also went on to point out to the first step of the Bruin analysis whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers plaintiff's proposed course of conduct, the possession and use of an AR 15 within the home for self-defense. The answer is yes, and again, the court's reluctance almost hatred to follow Heller here is evident throughout this opinion. Although Heller and Bruin treated handguns and not semi-automatic weapons, the applicability of the Second Amendment's text of the question before the court appears to have already been answered by those same decisions. Now of course, what the state of New Jersey is arguing is, hey, these are not in common use for self-defense. As if that were the test. The court didn't necessarily buy off on that. But even though Heller is very clear to all of us and appeared to be pretty clear to the court, they did point out the following.
Specifically, the state defendants argue that AR fifteens are not in common use for self-defense and therefore are not covered by the Second Amendment. What the Supreme Court meant by common use is not exactly clear. What if ever there was a clear rule of law as it relates to Second Amendment litigation. It is in fact the common use test. It is the clearest rule of law that one could announce. So even though the court really has no clue what in common use means, they still use that to strike down with a scalpel, I should say basically cut out this little portion of the statute the court ruled. Thus, when undertaking this common use for lawful purposes inquiry, the court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden with respect to the AR 15 plaintiffs have shown that the weapon is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for lawful purposes.
Further, plaintiffs have shown that AR fifteens are well adapted for self-defense. The AR fifteens design features including the effectiveness of its cartridges for self-defense use, and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines make the AR 15 a good choice for self-defense. Plaintiffs have also shown that the AR 15 is used or would be used should it be permitted to be used in New Jersey for self-defense. And therefore the court has ruled as it relates to the AR 15 aspect of the assault weapon ban. The AR 15 provision cannot stand since it's inconsistent with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations. The AR 15 provision is impermissible under the plain text of Heller, and the court did find this, and this is what makes their ruling as far as everything else still listed under the assault weapon ban in New Jersey, really incomprehensible. Thus, in this court's understanding of Supreme Court precedent, a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful.
Okay, so that's fairly good news. At least one tiny little portion of this law has been struck down how it doesn't apply to the rest. I am still clueless on that. Okay. Now with the large capacity magazines, they're obviously in common use for lawful purposes including self-defense, so that's been struck down as well, right? Wrong? No, it hasn't because see, the court believes that since magazines didn't exist at the time, we ratified our second Amendment. That is debatable by the way, that a more nuanced approach is what's needed here. I told everybody that the language in Mimi was going to get shoved down our throat, example number one right here. But what the court believes is that when they get to use this more nuanced approach, they get to throw the Bruin test all out the window. That's not what the court has ruled. A more nuanced approach when you're dealing with modern problems means that we may be able to look for other historical analogs, which may be more relevantly similar than dead on.
That's the nuanced approach that the court suggests. What the judge here believes is that a more nuanced approach is that he in fact gets to inject a whole new balancing test into this Second Amendment constitutionality inquiry, the same balancing test that the Bruin Court threw out on its ask. This is how the court wrote its opinion. The large capacity magazine amendment presents different issues and the nuanced analysis is implicated. Okay? But then you'll see that the nuanced approach is actually a balancing test because this is how the court rules the state defendant's argument is valid because the accuracy and lethality of the weapons in facilitated by these large capacity ammunition magazines is an unprecedented change and was not addressed in the Supreme Court's decision in Heller or Bruin. Yeah, because large capacity magazines and mass shootings were not present when they decided Heller or Bruin, the court also ruled where mass shootings have become a societal scourge.
The very practical issue of ways to prevent or alternately to limit their lethality is before the court. But again, and with all due respect, none of those matter anymore. It is kind of like, listen, your feelings don't really matter anymore when it comes to Second Amendment litigation. Now, in addition to all of that absurdity, the court also has ruled that because they believe magazines did not exist at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment. Turning now to the nuanced analysis evidence submitted to the court shows that detachable magazines did not exist in the founding period. Okay, and does that mean that they are no longer subject to Second Amendment protections? Tell you what else didn't exist at the time we ratified our Constitution. Yeah, the internet, but the First Amendment clearly covers that electronic media in general didn't even exist, but the First Amendment clearly covers that.
Hey, you want to know what else? There was only nine recognized religions in the United States when we ratified our Constitution and all of 'em were Christian in nature. Do we honestly believe that the First Amendment's, freedom of religion, only covers those nine oh, the Fourth Amendment protection of search and seizure? What was the only way that a search and seizure could occur back in the late 17 hundreds? Government agents could just kick your door in and rummage through your stuff. Nowadays, it can be done electronically. Does the Fourth Amendment not preserve any of that? So once again, while the court got part of its decision, right, it got a huge chunk of it. Very wrong. Okay, so here's the other punchline to this, is that this will inevitably be appealed and it likely will be overturned as it relates to the AR 15 ban. As a matter of fact, the notice of appeal was filed the exact same day that the ruling came out, which was just two days ago.
And by the way, don't be surprised if you see a stay issued by the higher court on that in the very near future. The bottom line is, Hey, listen, we should always celebrate a victory, and this is a big win in a state where we don't candidly get very many wins. Kudos to the plaintiff's counsel. You guys did a really, really good job. That's where my compliments end, because while the court here got part of this ruling, right, they got about the other 85% of it dead wrong. The case once again is Cheeseman v Platon. We're going to link it up down below so that you guys can all geek out on it for yourself. Maybe you got questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our second amendment. If you do, you should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now.
If you don't, that's okay. That information's down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing here. If you do, click on that link right there and let us know. Maybe you just want to subscribe to our newsletter. Hey, if you do, that link is down in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember, a part of me in the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M27gcTORHVg
Credit: William Kirk, Washington Gun Law, President