From the brief:

In Heller, the Supreme Court made clear that the lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment include individual self-defense, but the Court did not limit the Second Amendment right to that purpose. Quite to the contrary. The Second Amendment also protects the right to possess and carry arms for the purpose of the common defense-i.e., for the purpose of “repelling invasions,” “suppressing insurrections,” or “resist[ing] tyranny.” Thus, the arms protected by the amendment include weapons that are “suitable for the general defense of the community against invasion or oppression.” (Citing Heller and The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States, written by Thomas Cooley in 1880.)​

I am glad to see finally some argument on the usefulness of a weapon for militia purposes rather than just self defense, which was soon to have whittled down the Second Amendment right to include nothing more than revolvers limited to three shots.

 

From Heller:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.​

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738

 

Nemo pointed out that this case is one of the three that have been consolidated with Koons v. Platkin, so here is the thread.

https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/nj-3rd-cir-koons-v-platkin.285843/page-2?post_id=3169710#post-3169710

Nevermind.

There are three cases consolidated, but none of them them are Koons.


The consolidated cases are all AWB or magazine ban cases.

The case at hand, now known as ANJRPC v. Platkin, is actually a consolidation of three cases:

• ANJRPC v. Platkin (3:18-cv-10507) – Challenged NJ’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, ANJRPC case
• Ellman v. Platkin (3:22-cv-04397) – Challenged NJ’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles, ANJRPC case
• Cheeseman v. Platkin (1:22-cv-04360) – Challenged NJ’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles, FPC case

Third Circuit To Rehear En Banc Challenge to New Jersey's AWB and Magazine Ban Case

ANJRPC v. Platkin, which is a consolidation of three cases challenging New Jersey's so-called "assault weapon" ban and "high capacity magazine" ban, was heard by the Third Circuit less than two months ago in front of a three-judge panel. Before that panel could even render a decision, the full...

www.news2a.com

This is now an en banc Third Circuit case, meaning the entire slate of Third Circuit judges are hearing these three cases on appeal. READ THAT LAST LINK, as it gives very interesting context into how this court got to the position of en banc review. It is way more interesting than you might think.

As pointed out above, the DOJ filed an amicus brief. It is a pretty good one. Read it!

 

The DOJ Brief, just making it easy to find:

https://www.news2a.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/amicus-brief-cheeseman-anjrpc-v-platkin.pdf?x78246

Like I said, it is a good read and takes the position that while self defense is a protected purpose, so is being ready for war <---- My plain English translation of the brief.

 

The necessity for Jennifer Mascott’s confirmation:​

​

The video from Four Boxes Diner focuses on a pivotal moment in gun rights litigation in New Jersey and its national implications. Smith emphasizes the importance of the Oct. 15 date when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear an en banc challenge to New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.​

​

He calls for the urgent confirmation of Professor Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit, as her appointment could shift the court’s Republican-majority from 8-6 to 9-6, reducing the risk of a deadlock. A tie would uphold the district court’s pro-ban ruling, except for a narrow exception for the Colt AR-15.​

​

Mascott, an originalist scholar, is expected to support gun rights based on constitutional interpretation. Smith stresses the procedural complexities of Senate confirmations, noting GOP control but Democratic opposition, and stresses the urgency of expediting Mascott’s confirmation to influence the case’s outcome. After all, this case could set a precedent for future challenges to “assault weapon” bans, and could be a critical test for applying Supreme Court doctrine in jurisdictions with strict gun laws.​

Grassroots Legislative Update—Sept. 22, 2025 - TheGunMag - The Official Gun Magazine of the Second Amendment Foundation

By Tanya Metaksa What’s New—Government failures—Nevada; IT cyberattack: womenslaw.org; Two interesting videos from The Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com; California: AB1078 on its way to Gov. Gavin Newsom; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept...

www.thegunmag.com

 

Same Source:

Trump’s Judicial nominations are being “slow-walked.”

Jennifer Mascott’s confirmation has not yet been finalized.

Last week, we noted that the urgent need to confirm Professor Jennifer Mascott for the Third Circuit could influence the outcome of Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety & Homeland Security. Her appointment could change the court’s Republican majority from 8-6 to 9-6, lowering the chances of a deadlock. As of September 30, no vote has taken place in the U.S. Senate.

Government Shutdown

A partial government shutdown is set to begin at 12:00 a.m. on October 1, 2025, if a meeting between Congressional leaders and President Trump fails to break the impasse.