Blue State’s Plot To Bankrupt Gun Manufacturers Dealt Blow By Federal Court

By Harold Hutchison

An 18-month legal battle swung in a pro-Second Amendment direction Tuesday after a federal appeals court ruled against New Jersey’s scheme to threaten firearm manufacturers with bankruptcy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied New Jersey’s effort to block a suit by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) against a law allowing the state to sue gun stores and firearm manufacturers in an opinion released Tuesday. The three-judge panel consisting of two Trump appointees and a Clinton appointee on senior status ruled that the six lawsuits the state had filed under A1765, a 2022 law that targeted the firearms industry, gave the trade group standing to challenge the law. (RELATED: Blue State Fails To Get Suit Tossed Over Delayed Gun Permits)

“New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22,” United States Circuit Judge David J. Porter, one of the Trump appointees, wrote for the unanimous panel. “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.”

“What’s more, New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22… Because NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’ we reject New Jersey’s proposed rule.” pic.twitter.com/XXacltADEn

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 8, 2026

Younger v. Harris is a 1971 Supreme Court decision that created the “abstention doctrine.” Federal courts generally must stay out of ongoing state judicial proceedings that implicate important state interests, so long as the state forum gives an adequate chance to raise federal constitutional claims.

“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,” NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said in a Tuesday release. “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.”

“This procedural ruling does not address the merits of NSSF’s challenge to our state’s gun industry accountability law, a spokesperson for Democratic Attorney General Jennifer Davenport told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Our Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) office will continue its important work to protect our state from gun violence, and we look forward to continuing to defend against this lawsuit in court.

While the state’s December 2024 lawsuit against Glock over so-called “Glock switches” – devices that are used to illegally modify the popular semiautomatic pistols to either a select-fire or a full-auto mode of operation – generated headlines, New Jersey also initiated legal action against SIG SAUER in October 2025, alleging that their P320 pistol was unsafe and caused unintentional discharges. SIG SAUER did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF. (RELATED: Liberal-Leaning Court Says Anti-Gun Group Had No Right To Sue Over Biden Admin Rule)

“In the decade since its introduction, the P320 has undergone the most rigorous testing and evaluation of any firearm, by military and law enforcement agencies around the world,” SIG SAUER said in a statement on its website. “It consistently delivers a proven record of performance and reliability through state-of-the-art engineering, and documented quality control at every stage of its production. Claims that unintended discharges are anything more than negligent handling and/or manufactured lies to support an anti-gun, anti-SIG agenda are false.”

NSSF argued in its February 2025 amended complaint that A1765 violates the Second Amendment, First Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.