Originally published on NSSF. Republished with permission.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision in NSSF v. Attorney General New Jersey, holding that NSSF has standing to challenge New Jersey’s “reasonable controls” law (A1765) and reversing a lower court’s decision that it was required to abstain from ruling on the merits of NSSF’s lawsuit because the New Jersey attorney general brought an enforcement action against one of its 10,000 members.
A previous challenge to the law by NSSF was dismissed for lack of standing because the law had yet to be enforced against a member company, making the lawsuit premature.
This time, a lower court held that it could not reach the merits of the case by invoking the Younger Abstention Doctrine, a legal rule that cautions federal courts from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings because the New Jersey attorney general was enforcing the law. That effectively barred NSSF from the courthouse doors for being too late. The Third Circuit rejected New Jersey’s argument.
“New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22,” the Third Circuit decision reads. “If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing, like in NSSF I. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger. Because NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’ we reject New Jersey’s proposed rule.”
“This is a tremendous legal hurdle that has been cleared to permit our challenge to be heard in court. This law clearly violates the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and is unconstitutional in many respects,” explained Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel.
“The challenge to this law has been tortured and the previous frustrations to demonstrate that this state law attempts to circumvent federal law can now move forward. We are confident that New Jersey’s naked attempt to undermine the will of Congress and bankrupt firearm manufacturers and sellers through frivolous lawsuits will not stand legal review.”
NSSF filed an amended complaint in February 2025 against New Jersey’s anti-Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) law that is not consistent with the Constitution. NSSF filed a motion to reopen the case and for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion and amended complaint were filed after New Jersey’s attorney general brought lawsuits against several industry members, including GLOCK, Inc. The state alleged the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals modify and alter well-designed and lawfully-sold GLOCK pistols by illegally obtaining, possessing and installing a machinegun conversion device (MCD) on the handgun.
NSSF previously sued to block New Jersey’s law from taking effect and initially obtained a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the law against NSSF members, but that challenge was dismissed on appeal when a prior three-judge panel for the Third Circuit determined that NSSF lacked standing at the time to challenge the law because it had not yet been enforced.
New Jersey’s attorney general disavowed to the appellate court that it had any intention of suing firearm manufacturers for engaging in lawful commerce or placing liability on firearm manufacturers for the criminal misconduct of third parties beyond their control. They promised to only sue for a company’s own misconduct.
That was demonstrably false.
NSSF’s amended complaint argues that New Jersey’s public nuisance law flouts the will of Congress because it is preempted by the bipartisan PLCAA. Additionally, it violates the First Amendment, Second Amendment, 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause.
Keane said, “NSSF looks forward to finally having its day in Court. Attorney General Jennifer Davenport’s lawsuits against GLOCK and SIG SAUER, and other industry members under the state’s ‘reasonable control’ law are the very definition of ‘lawfare.’ The statute should be struck down as unconstitutional.”
Comments