New Jersey Democrats invented a legal trap specifically designed to give gun manufacturers no federal court to run to.
A federal appeals court just reviewed that trap.
What the judges found – and what they called it – is something New Jersey never wanted in a federal opinion.
New Jersey Gun Law Targets Manufacturers With Second Amendment End-Around
Democrat politicians have a problem. Congress passed a federal law in 2005 – with bipartisan support – that specifically prohibits states from using frivolous civil lawsuits to bankrupt gun manufacturers out of existence.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was Washington's answer to a wave of city governments suing Glock and Smith & Wesson for crimes committed by third parties who bought their products legally.
The idea was simple: you don't sue Ford because a drunk driver killed someone. Congress drew a clear line.
New Jersey decided the line didn't apply to them.
In 2022, Democrat Governor Phil Murphy signed A1765, a law designed to expose gun manufacturers, sellers, distributors, and importers to civil liability under a "public nuisance" theory – the exact workaround liberal lawyers had been shopping around blue-state legislatures for years.
Under A1765, New Jersey's attorney general could haul Glock, SIG SAUER, or any other firearm company into state court over crimes committed by third parties using their legally sold products.
That is precisely what Congress said couldn't happen.
How New Jersey Used Federal Courts to Block Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit
The National Shooting Sports Foundation – the firearms industry's trade association – went straight to federal court to kill the law before New Jersey could weaponize it. The first lawsuit got thrown out because courts said NSSF didn't yet have standing: no enforcement actions had been filed, so the threat was still hypothetical.
New Jersey took that as green light.
The attorney general immediately started filing enforcement actions – against FSS Armory, Eagle Shows, JSD Supply, Glock, and SIG SAUER. Once the state started pulling triggers on its own law, NSSF went back to federal court.
This time a district judge dismissed the case again – this time hiding behind the Younger Abstention Doctrine, a rule that keeps federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings.
New Jersey had constructed a perfect trap: NSSF couldn't sue before enforcement because it lacked standing. The moment enforcement began, federal courts had to stand down under Younger.
The Third Circuit saw it for what it was.
"New Jersey's proposed rule would create a Catch-22," U.S. Circuit Judge David J. Porter wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger."
The court rejected the trap entirely, ruling that NSSF has standing to challenge A1765 and that the district court was wrong to invoke Younger abstention. The case now returns to federal court – where New Jersey's law will finally face the constitutional reckoning the state spent four years trying to prevent.
Gun Rights Under Fire as Blue States Copy New Jersey Public Nuisance Law
New Jersey is not alone. California, Connecticut, New Mexico, and New York have all passed similar "public nuisance" statutes targeting the firearms industry.
New York's version already survived a federal challenge – the Second Circuit upheld it in July 2025, and the Supreme Court declined to review it just three months ago. The legal question is live, unsettled, and heading for a reckoning.
The New Jersey case may be the vehicle that forces the Supreme Court to finally end the game.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane said after the ruling: "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."
The Supreme Court in June 2025 unanimously rejected Mexico's lawsuit against American gun makers – a case where Mexico tried to use a similar end-around to hold manufacturers responsible for cartel violence. The court was clear: the PLCAA means what it says. States trying to accomplish through litigation what Congress explicitly prohibited are playing a losing hand.
New Jersey Democrats know that. They've always known it. The goal was never to win in court – it was to bleed the industry dry with legal costs until manufacturers chose to settle or stop selling in New Jersey entirely.
A federal judge is about to look these people in the eye and explain what Congress told them twenty years ago.
Sources:
- Harold Hutchison, "New Jersey's Plot To Bankrupt Gun Manufacturers Dealt Blow By Federal Court," Daily Caller, September 9, 2026.
- "Third Circuit Allows NSSF Challenge to N.J.'s 'Reasonable Controls' Law," NSSF, September 8, 2026.
- "3rd Circuit Allows Lawsuit Against NJ's Gun Industry Liability Law," Breitbart, September 8, 2026.
- Jonathan Turley, "Lock and [Re-]Loaded: Third Circuit Greenlights Major Challenge to New Jersey Gun Liability Law," JonathanTurley.org, September 9, 2026.
- "New Jersey Gun-Industry Liability Law Challenge Revived," AmmoLand, September 9, 2026.
