The appeals court found that a firearms trade group has a concrete basis to sue after six state enforcement cases, leaving the statute in force while a federal court considers its legality.
TRENTON, NJ – A federal appeals court has revived a firearms-industry challenge to New Jersey’s gun-industry public-nuisance law, finding that the trade association behind the case may pursue its federal claims now that the state has enforced the law against manufacturers and sellers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Tuesday, Sept. 8, that the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, has legal standing to challenge the law. The court also found that a federal judge should not have paused the case because New Jersey has a separate state lawsuit pending against Glock, an NSSF member.
The ruling leaves New Jersey’s law in force. The three-judge panel did not decide whether the statute violates the Constitution or conflicts with federal law, and it did not block the attorney general from enforcing it. The decision allows those questions to proceed in federal court.
The 24-page Third Circuit opinion was written by U.S. Circuit Judge David J. Porter, with Judges Paul B. Matey and Thomas L. Ambro joining.
What New Jersey’s law requires
New Jersey enacted A1765, now codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:58-33 through 2C:58-36, in July 2022. Then-Gov. Phil Murphy signed the measure after the Legislature said existing court decisions and a federal firearms-liability law had limited the state’s ability to pursue gun companies whose conduct allegedly harmed the public.
The New Jersey law applies to manufacturers, sellers, distributors, importers and marketers of firearms, ammunition, magazines and other gun-related products.
It prohibits a gun-industry member from knowingly or recklessly creating, maintaining or contributing to a public nuisance through conduct that is either illegal or “unreasonable under all the circumstances.” It also requires companies to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls.”
Under the statute, those controls include procedures intended to prevent sales to straw purchasers, traffickers, prohibited buyers and people believed to pose a substantial risk of unlawful harm. Businesses must also take steps to prevent theft or loss, comply with state and federal law and avoid promoting illegal gun sales or possession.
The law creates a civil enforcement process, not a new criminal charge. Only the New Jersey attorney general may bring a lawsuit under it. Available remedies include an injunction, measures to end the alleged nuisance, restitution, damages and reimbursement of legal costs.
The attorney general does not have to prove that a company intended to cause a public nuisance. The law also says criminal conduct by another person does not necessarily break the legal chain between a company’s conduct and public harm when that harm was reasonably foreseeable.
The dispute over federal protection for gun companies
NSSF argues that the New Jersey law conflicts with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, commonly called PLCAA.
Congress enacted PLCAA in 2005 to bar certain lawsuits seeking to hold firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for harm caused solely by another person’s criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm that worked as designed.
The federal law contains exceptions. One allows a case to proceed when a manufacturer or seller knowingly violates a state or federal law that applies to the sale or marketing of firearms and that violation directly causes the alleged harm. This is known as the “predicate exception” because the lawsuit must rest on an underlying legal violation.
New Jersey maintains that its law regulates a company’s own misconduct and may qualify for that exception. NSSF argues that the state statute uses broad terms such as “unreasonable” and “reasonable controls” to impose liability for conduct that may be legal under other state and federal laws.
NSSF’s amended complaint also alleges violations of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause. Among other claims, the association argues that the law could regulate lawful firearms marketing, burden sales and manufacturing outside New Jersey and leave businesses without clear notice of what conduct is prohibited.
The Third Circuit discussed those claims only to determine whether NSSF faced a concrete threat of injury sufficient to sue. Describing a claim as “arguable” or “plausible” for standing purposes does not mean the court found that the claim will succeed.
The eventual decision will also have to account for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico. The Supreme Court held that Mexico had not plausibly alleged that gun manufacturers aided illegal firearm sales to drug cartels, meaning PLCAA barred that particular lawsuit. The ruling did not decide whether New Jersey’s statute qualifies for the federal law’s predicate exception. The Third Circuit cited the decision while leaving its effect on New Jersey’s law for later proceedings.
Six state cases changed the federal lawsuit
NSSF initially sued New Jersey on Nov. 16, 2022, before the attorney general had used the law against any company.
U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi issued a preliminary injunction in January 2023 after finding that NSSF was likely to establish that the state law conflicted with PLCAA. The Third Circuit vacated that injunction in August 2023 because NSSF had not shown an imminent enforcement threat and therefore lacked standing. The court did not review Quraishi’s analysis of the law itself.
New Jersey later filed six enforcement actions under the statute, according to Tuesday’s opinion.
In December 2023, the state sued Pennsylvania-based Eagle Shows and JSD Supply over ghost-gun kits allegedly sold in Pennsylvania and later transported into New Jersey. It also sued FSS Armory over firearms allegedly stored near a ground-floor window and later stolen.
In November 2024, New Jersey sued Point Blank Guns and Ammo and Butch’s Gun World after undercover investigators allegedly purchased ammunition and magazines without being asked for identification, a permit or other credentials. The complaints accused the retailers of failing to maintain reasonable controls without alleging that those particular sales violated another state or federal law, the Third Circuit said.
The state sued Glock in December 2024, alleging the company knowingly sells pistols that can be converted into fully automatic weapons with illegal devices commonly called Glock switches or auto sears. New Jersey contends that Glock could change its designs to make that conversion more difficult. Glock disputes the claims and argues that PLCAA and the Constitution bar the case. A state judge rejected Glock’s motion to dismiss in October 2025, allowing the litigation to continue.
New Jersey filed the sixth case against Sig Sauer in October 2025, alleging that P320 pistols can discharge without a trigger pull and that the company failed to properly address or disclose the alleged defect. Glock and Sig Sauer are NSSF members.
Those cases changed the standing analysis, the Third Circuit found. NSSF’s concerns were no longer based entirely on a possible future use of the statute because New Jersey was actively applying it to conduct similar to activities performed by the association’s members.
Why the federal case can proceed alongside the Glock lawsuit
After NSSF returned to federal court, Quraishi found in July 2025 that the enforcement cases gave the association standing. He nevertheless stayed the case under a rule known as Younger abstention.
The doctrine generally limits federal-court interference with certain pending state enforcement proceedings. New Jersey argued that a federal ruling invalidating the law could provide Glock with a complete defense in the state case.
The Third Circuit found that Younger abstention did not apply because NSSF is not a party to the Glock lawsuit. The association and Glock are separate organizations, and neither owns, controls or manages the other. NSSF also said it was not asking the federal court to directly stop the state’s case against Glock.
A federal ruling could affect Glock’s defenses, the court acknowledged. That type of indirect effect is insufficient by itself to require abstention when the federal plaintiff and state-court defendant are legally separate.
The panel said accepting New Jersey’s argument would place associations in a procedural “Catch-22”: a challenge filed before enforcement could be dismissed as premature, while one filed after enforcement could be rejected for interfering with the state case.
NSSF called the decision a major procedural victory and repeated its position that New Jersey’s statute violates PLCAA and the Constitution. The state has argued in court that the law is a valid public-safety measure directed at misconduct by gun-industry businesses.
The case now returns to federal district court, where NSSF may continue seeking preliminary and permanent orders against enforcement. New Jersey’s lawsuits against Glock, Sig Sauer and other businesses can proceed separately unless another court orders otherwise.
A similar New York law survived a federal challenge when the Second Circuit upheld it in July 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that ruling in June 2026. The denial did not endorse the Second Circuit’s reasoning, and that decision does not bind courts within the Third Circuit.
The New Jersey case is National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 25-2546. No injunction currently prevents the attorney general from using the state law.