Second Amendment Lawsuits Target New Jersey’s Strict Gun Control Measures

A fresh legal battle over Second Amendment rights is unfolding in New Jersey, where groups are targeting state bans on suppressors and compact rifles.

On July 18, 2025, two lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging New Jersey’s prohibition on firearm suppressors and short-barreled rifles. These challenges arrive in the wake of significant federal developments, including the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill which eliminated the federal tax on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and other National Firearms Act registered items. The new legislation has cleared the path for constitutional challenges to similar restrictions at the state level.

The first lawsuit, Padua v. Platkin, is focused on New Jersey’s total ban on suppressors. Under state law, possessing one of these devices is a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a ten thousand dollar fine, even if the suppressor is legally registered under federal law.

The plaintiffs, including individual gun owners and organizations such as the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Second Amendment Foundation, Safari Club International, American Suppressor Association, and the National Rifle Association, argue that the ban violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs specifically contend that the prohibition deprives citizens of access to a widely used and federally regulated device that serves an important safety function for lawful gun owners. They point to the fact that suppressors reduce gunfire noise by around thirty decibels which can make a major difference for people who frequent shooting ranges or suffer from hearing-related conditions like tinnitus.

Medical professionals increasingly recognize suppressors as hearing protection devices. Some refer to them as especially important for shooters because they help reduce the permanent hearing damage associated with frequent firearms use. Contrary to Hollywood depictions, the plaintiffs say suppressors do not silence gunfire but instead reduce the sound to levels more comparable to construction equipment than to lethal stealth tools. By their measure, the noise from a suppressed firearm still exceeds damaging threshold levels, often louder than a jackhammer and far from silent.

The plaintiffs make the case that suppressors are not only safely and widely used but also rooted in a well-established American tradition. Historical records show that former President Theodore Roosevelt used them while hunting and that they were commercially available and commonly used before the government imposed regulation through the National Firearms Act in 1934. They argue that under the legal framework laid out by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which held that modern gun regulations must align with the nation’s historical firearm tradition, blanket bans like New Jersey’s are unconstitutional.

The second lawsuit, also filed on July 18, challenges the state’s prohibition on short-barreled rifles. These are rifles with barrels shorter than sixteen inches or with overall lengths under twenty-six inches.

The plaintiffs in that case include the Firearms Policy Coalition and Englishtown Borough Mayor Daniel Francisco, a vocal supporter of Second Amendment rights who previously made headlines for refunding concealed carry permit fees to residents in his town. The new complaint argues that these rifles are widely used across the country for self-defense, sporting, and training purposes and that they offer particular advantages in home defense scenarios due to their compactness and maneuverability in tight quarters.

According to records from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, short-barreled rifles are growing in popularity. As of 2021, over half a million of them were registered with the federal agency. By 2024, that number had grown to over eight hundred thousand with likely well over one million now lawfully registered in the country. Plaintiffs say these numbers confirm that SBRs are in common use and not disproportionately used in crimes, making them fully protected under the Second Amendment under the standards set by the Supreme Court.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is the primary defendant in both cases. His office has promised to continue defending the state’s gun laws, which it has described as common-sense protections. But advocates on the other side believe these new lawsuits will force courts to confront the widening gap between federal and state firearm policy. While the federal government has moved toward removing financial and bureaucratic hurdles surrounding ownership of suppressors and SBRs, states like New Jersey continue to impose outright bans.

The outcomes of these cases could significantly impact the legal status of firearm accessories and restricted weapon configurations across the country. Beyond New Jersey, suppressor bans remain in effect in seven other states, including California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, where similar legal challenges are already underway. With the One Big Beautiful Bill removing federal barriers and the legal landscape shifting after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, gun rights organizations are pressing their advantage. They are hoping to dismantle what they see as outdated and unconstitutional laws once and for all.

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.