A Major Second Amendment Win, and Why It Matters for Washington

AR and MAG bans ruled Unconstitutional!

A major federal appeals court just issued one of the strongest Second Amendment rulings in the country against bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the New Jersey litigation challenging the state’s “assault firearm” restrictions and its ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. According to Reuters, the Third Circuit ruled on July 17, 2026, that New Jersey’s restrictions on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles and magazines over 10 rounds violate the Second Amendment. (streetinsider.com)

This ruling is significant because it does not treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. The court applied the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework in a way that should matter far beyond New Jersey. Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue, the government must prove that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That means the government cannot simply point to modern policy arguments, public-safety preferences, or the label “assault weapon” and call the matter closed.

The Third Circuit’s core reasoning is directly favorable to our Second Amendment work. The court recognized that commonly owned semiautomatic rifles are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. It also rejected the idea that the government may ban an entire class of commonly possessed rifles merely by describing them as unusually dangerous or politically disfavored. That matters because Washington’s own HB 1240 uses the same basic strategy: it targets commonly owned semiautomatic firearms by name and by features, then attempts to justify that ban by relabeling ordinary civilian arms as “assault weapons.”

The magazine portion of the ruling may be especially important for the Gator’s Guns case. The Third Circuit concluded that magazines over 10 rounds are protected under the Second Amendment. That matters because Washington’s magazine law, like New Jersey’s, turns on an arbitrary 10-round line. The practical question is simple: if a magazine is part of how a semiautomatic firearm functions, and if such magazines are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, then the government should not be able to remove those magazines from the marketplace by legislative preference.

That reasoning cuts directly against Washington’s defense of its magazine restrictions. Washington’s law prohibits the manufacture, distribution, sale, and offering for sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, with limited exceptions. The Associated Press reported that since July 2022, Washington has prohibited manufacture, distribution, sale, or offering for sale of magazines over 10 rounds, and that the Gator’s Guns case arose from the State’s enforcement action against Gator’s Guns in Kelso. (apnews.com)

The current public status of Gator’s Guns is important. The Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc. on May 8, 2025, after oral argument on January 14, 2025. The case came from Cowlitz County Superior Court, where Judge Gary Bashor had entered the order under review on April 8, 2024. (courts.wa.gov)

After the Washington Supreme Court decision, Gator’s Custom Guns and Walter Wentz filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court docket shows the case as Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., et al. v. Washington, No. 25-153. The petition was docketed on August 8, 2025, from the Washington Supreme Court, and the question before the Court concerns whether ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. The docket also shows strong outside support, including amicus briefs from the National Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and a group of states led by Montana. (supremecourt.gov)

As of the most recent public docket information, the Supreme Court has not denied the Gator’s petition. Instead, the case has been repeatedly distributed for conference, including conferences throughout the 2025 and 2026 Terms, with the most recent listed distribution for the June 29, 2026 conference. (supremecourt.gov) That repeated relisting does not guarantee review, but it does show that the case remains alive and that the Court has not simply turned away the question presented.

The timing is important because the Supreme Court has now agreed to take up the broader question of whether bans on semiautomatic rifles, commonly called “assault weapons” bans, violate the Second Amendment. The Associated Press reported on June 30, 2026, that the Supreme Court will hear challenges involving bans in Connecticut and the Chicago area. (apnews.com) That development could affect the legal landscape for Washington’s HB 1240 and similar laws nationwide.

For Guardian Arms, the Third Circuit ruling is also favorable. Guardian Arms challenges Washington’s ban on the sale of so-called “assault weapons.” Public reporting from the Washington Attorney General’s Office confirms that Guardian Arms v. Inslee challenged HB 1240 and that a Thurston County Superior Court judge denied a temporary restraining order on June 23, 2023. The same release states that HB 1240 went into effect immediately after Governor Jay Inslee signed it on April 25, 2023, and that the law prohibits the sale, manufacture, and import of covered “assault weapons” while not prohibiting possession. (atg.wa.gov)

Guardian Arms remains important because Washington’s law is not a narrow public-safety regulation. It is a sweeping sales, manufacture, import, and distribution ban on many firearms that are commonly owned across the country. The State’s argument depends heavily on the idea that these firearms can be carved out of constitutional protection because of their features, appearance, or asserted public-safety concerns. The Third Circuit’s ruling undermines that argument by reaffirming that common ownership and lawful civilian use matter, and that the government must produce a true historical analogue for a comparable modern ban.

There is another Washington case moving alongside these issues in federal court: Hartford v. Ferguson, a challenge to HB 1240 filed in the Western District of Washington. Public case information from the Second Amendment Foundation describes Hartford as an active case filed on April 25, 2023, challenging HB 1240’s ban on commonly possessed semiautomatic firearms. That public update also reports that the case was stayed, with the stay continued pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Duncan v. Bonta or a further status report. (saf.org)

The broader national picture is changing quickly. Courts have split over whether bans on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and magazines are constitutional. Some courts have upheld these laws. Others, now including the Third Circuit, have rejected them under Bruen. That split is exactly the kind of conflict that makes Supreme Court review more likely and more necessary.

The ramifications for our cases are clear.

First, the Third Circuit strengthens the argument that semiautomatic rifles are protected “arms.” That helps undercut Washington’s attempt to treat commonly owned rifles as if they sit outside the Second Amendment.

Second, the ruling strengthens the argument that magazines are not mere accessories. They are integral components of many firearms, and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Third, the ruling reinforces that “common use” cannot be avoided by political labeling. Calling a rifle an “assault weapon” does not answer the constitutional question. The relevant question is whether the arm is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and whether the government can prove a comparable historical tradition of restriction.

Fourth, the ruling attacks the modern-ban theory at its weakest point: history. Modern bans on entire classes of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines are not Founding-era regulations. They are recent policy innovations. Under Bruen, that matters.

Fifth, the ruling gives our side powerful persuasive authority to use in Washington litigation and in national briefing. It is not binding on Washington courts or the Ninth Circuit, but it is a major federal appellate decision that can be cited for the proposition that bans on common rifles and standard-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment.

Silent Majority Foundation’s position has been consistent: the Constitution does not protect only the firearms that politicians prefer. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right includes arms that are commonly chosen by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

Washington’s firearm restrictions remain in force unless and until a court orders otherwise. But the legal landscape is moving. Gator’s Guns is before the United States Supreme Court on the magazine question. Guardian Arms continues to stand as part of the fight against Washington’s semiautomatic firearms ban. The Supreme Court has agreed to address assault-weapon bans. And now the Third Circuit has issued a major pro-Second Amendment ruling rejecting both a semiautomatic rifle ban and a 10-round magazine ban.

That is real momentum.

Silent Majority Foundation will continue fighting to restore constitutional limits in Washington and to ensure that the Second Amendment means what it says.