Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport petitioned the Supreme Court on Oct. 1 to revive her state’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds after a federal appeals court struck it down.
The Daily Caller reported that the filing targets the Third Circuit’s decision in Cheeseman v. New Jersey, which held the limit unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The Third Circuit cited widespread ownership of those magazines for lawful purposes. The ruling puts New Jersey’s restriction in direct conflict with other federal appellate decisions and raises the stakes for similar bans across blue states.
Gun owners who lawfully possess standard-capacity magazines now watch a high-court fight that could decide whether such bans survive nationwide.
In Cheeseman v. New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit declared the state’s magazine ban unconstitutional. The court grounded its holding in Second Amendment protections and the common, lawful use of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
New Jersey responded by asking the Supreme Court to step in. Davenport’s petition frames the Third Circuit as having brushed aside the state’s core justifications for the law.
The petition states the state’s position in plain terms.
"Despite changes in the technology and the rise of modern mass shootings, the Court disagreed with the State that this case involved an ‘unprecedented societal concern’ necessitating a more ‘nuanced approach,’ or that such an approach would change the outcome."
New Jersey claimed the Third Circuit ignored “changes in the technology” as well as “mass shootings.” The state wants the justices to treat modern firearm accessories and public-safety fears as reasons for a different constitutional analysis.
The Firearms Policy Coalition flagged a firm calendar mark. In an Oct. 12 post on X, the group noted it faces a Nov. 4 deadline to respond to New Jersey’s request.
That filing will give the justices the other side of the dispute before they decide whether to grant review. No public schedule has been announced for conferences on the New Jersey petition itself.
If the Supreme Court takes the case and affirms the Third Circuit, magazine bans that reach past ten rounds would face severe pressure in other jurisdictions. If the Court reverses, states would regain broader room to impose capacity limits.
The New Jersey fight does not stand alone. The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds in Duncan v. Bonta. That creates a clear split with the Third Circuit’s approach in Cheeseman.
The Supreme Court has considered whether to take Duncan v. Bonta for over 24 conferences. As of the Tuesday before the Daily Caller account, the justices had not announced a decision on that petition.
A record stretch of conferences without a grant or denial keeps both magazine cases in legal limbo. The split gives the Court a concrete reason to settle the constitutional question rather than leave gun owners under different rules depending on geography.
Magazine capacity is only one front. Federal appellate courts have also divided on waiting periods and related restrictions.
The First Circuit upheld Maine’s three-day waiting period on firearms purchases in Beckwith v. Frey. By contrast, the Tenth Circuit struck down a waiting period on firearms purchases in August 2025. That panel overruled a decision that had favored New Mexico and that had come from Senior United States District Judge James O. Browning, a George W. Bush appointee.
Firearms company Daniel Defense saw a federal district judge toss its lawsuit in Daniel Defense v. Lowy. The Fourth Circuit sided with Lowy. The company appealed to the Supreme Court in August and pointed to a conflict with other federal appellate courts.
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court recently denied a hearing in Johnson v. United States. That case involved a felon-in-possession charge tied to an underlying felony of growing marijuana.
Taken together, the petitions show multiple circuits testing how far states and the federal government may go before the Second Amendment blocks them. The New Jersey magazine case now joins that cluster.
Davenport’s petition centers on two themes the Third Circuit rejected: technological change and mass shootings. The state argues those factors create an “unprecedented societal concern” that should allow a more flexible judicial approach.
The Third Circuit did not accept that framing. It treated the magazines as in common use for lawful purposes and applied ordinary Second Amendment scrutiny.
Investigators of the legal record will need to determine how the Supreme Court weighs historical tradition against the state’s modern-policy claims. The justices will also need to decide whether a circuit split of this depth requires a uniform national rule.
No public results have been released on whether the Court views the New Jersey petition as the cleanest vehicle, or whether it prefers to resolve the issue through the long-pending Duncan matter from California.
Millions of law-abiding owners already possess magazines that hold more than ten rounds. A Supreme Court loss for New Jersey would protect that status. A win for the state would invite other governments to reinstate or expand similar bans.
The Firearms Policy Coalition has framed the moment as part of a broader push. Its October post linked the New Jersey fight to other “assault weapon” cases and said the effort to eliminate such bans nationwide is fully underway.
Procedurally, the next visible step is the Nov. 4 response. After that, the Court can grant review, deny it, or hold the petition pending other Second Amendment cases already under consideration.
Lower courts have now produced conflicting answers on magazines and waiting periods. Only the Supreme Court can make those answers consistent.
Constitutional rights do not shrink because a state attorney general dislikes the technology in common use. When blue-state officials ask the justices to restore bans already ruled unlawful, the Court faces a clear choice between the Second Amendment’s text and political demand.
