The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is currently reviewing New Jersey's longstanding ban on assault weapons, including AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, amid a shift towards a more conservative judicial stance following recent appointments.

The case is being heard en banc with the full court, including Trump appointees like Judge Jennifer Mascott, who questioned whether the law infringes on Second Amendment rights during oral arguments.

Gun rights advocates challenge the constitutionality of the law, which has been in place for 35 years and bans assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, arguing it is necessary for public safety and aligns with historical firearm regulations.

Advocates argue the ban is unconstitutional, citing a 2022 Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights and affirmed the right to carry handguns for self-defense.

Attorney General Matt Platkin defends the law, emphasizing its role in maintaining low gun violence rates over 35 years and referencing recent mass shootings involving assault weapons across the U.S.

Platkin highlights recent legal victories, such as a court allowing a lawsuit against Glock over devices that convert handguns into automatic weapons, aiming to hold firearm manufacturers accountable.

Legal experts warn that the outcome could significantly influence the interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun laws nationwide, especially in the post-Bruen legal landscape.

The Third Circuit, which includes a majority of Republican judges, is now evaluating whether New Jersey's assault weapons ban violates constitutional rights, with recent judicial shifts favoring gun rights.

Jennifer Mascott, a Trump appointee, was sworn in as part of the panel hearing the case, indicating a judicial shift that could favor gun rights in this legal battle.

The state's solicitor general defends the ban, citing the need to address the modern crisis of mass shootings, with the Supreme Court declining to review the case so far.

This legal challenge is part of a broader pattern, with six other federal appellate courts recently rejecting similar assault weapon ban challenges, and the U.S. Supreme Court has so far declined to intervene.

The case reflects ongoing national disputes over firearm regulations and constitutional rights, following similar decisions in other states.