October 28, 2025

New Jersey AG’s Lawfare Against Firearm Industry Enters New Territory

By Shelby Baird Smith

New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew Platkin is taking his campaign of lawfare into new territory with a worn-out playbook. In short, AG Platkin is attempting to use the U.S. judicial system to export New Jersey-style gun control to the rest of the country.

AG Platkin faces significant hurdles in convincing courts that New Jersey has the authority to dictate commerce in firearms in other states. Indeed, AG Platkin already backtracked on his promise to the courts that he wouldn’t use ill-defined and nebulous definitions in the law to wage a lawfare campaign against firearm industry members for engaging in lawful commerce. Yet, that’s exactly what he’s doing.

New Jersey AG Platkin filed a lawsuit against SIG SAUER over the sale of the P320, citing the state’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law, which calls for an ill-defined “reasonable controls” standard for “public nuisance” liability targeting the industry and the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The suit seeks to halt the sale of SIG SAUER’s P320 handgun, force a mandatory recall and cease the gun manufacturer’s advertising for the handgun.

Manufacturer Fires Back

SIG SAUER, for its part, responded to the lawfare in a press release. The firearm manufacturer said AG Platkin’s legal complaint was filled with “numerous false and unsubstantiated claims.” Specifically, SIG SAUER noted that AG Platkin’s claims that the U.S. Army deemed the Modular Handgun System (MHS) “unsafe” is, in fact, “outright false.” SIG SAUER refuted AG Platkin’s claim that the company was eliminated from competition to provide the next sidearm to the U.S. military. In fact, SIG Sauer was awarded the contract.

SIG SAUER also rebuffed AG Platkin’s claims that the one of the handgun’s safety mechanisms can be disabled without pressure to the trigger. “This is also false,” the release stated. SIG SAUER noted that its engineers worked with the FBI Ballistics Research Facility and Michigan State Police, which commissioned the report, and found zero failures. Michigan State Police continue to carry the P320.

AG Platkin is pursuing his lawfare campaign against firearm manufacturers under a dubious “public nuisance” law aimed at firearm industry members that NSSF is currently challenging at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Under that law, AG Platkin claims that SIG SAUER’s sale of the P320 constitutes “unreasonable conduct” that has “knowingly or recklessly created, maintained, or contributed to a public nuisance” in the state. The law, NSSF contends, is an end-run on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and violates the U.S. Constitution several times over.

NSSF previously sued to block New Jersey’s law from taking effect, but that suit was dismissed after a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that NSSF lacked standing at the time to challenge the law. AG Platkin’s office 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.”

Weaponizing Judicial System

But that’s not what AG Platkin did. Following his representations to the federal appellate court, AG Platkin waited only a few months before filing several lawsuits against industry members under the law for their participation in lawful commerce and seeking to hold them liable for harms caused by criminal acts of third parties.

For example, AG Platkin brought enforcement actions against two licensed firearms retailers for failing to determine whether customers who purchased magazines or rifle ammunition were prohibited from possessing firearms (beyond verifying that a purchaser of the latter is over the age of 18), despite no state or federal law requirement that retailers do so. AG Platkin’s claims were predicated exclusively on the theory that the retailers failed to employ “reasonable controls” under the aforementioned “public nuisance” law.

Then AG Platkin filed suit against another firearm manufacturer, GLOCK, Inc. AG Platkin’s frivolous lawsuit against GLOCK was filed shortly after the now- shuttered Biden-Harris White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to sue GLOCK on behalf of the City of Chicago advancing the same claim based on a similar Illinois statute. Once Chicago sued, AG Platkin and a group of 11 other states and the District of Columbia threatened to sue GLOCK as well.

Fearing that our other members would be AG Platkin’s next targets, NSSF moved to reopen the case and amended its complaint. NSSF’s Larry Keane said in a press release when the amended complaint against New Jersey was filed, “As feared, Attorney General Platkin has weaponized the judicial system against firearm manufacturers who have done nothing but engage in lawful commerce and have not violated any federal or state statutes. New Jersey is seeking to blame GLOCK and other industry members for the actions of criminals.”

Now, with AG Platkin’s lawfare against another firearm manufacturer, it is clear that AG Platkin never had any intention of limiting enforcement of New Jersey’s law to apply only to unlawful commerce or conduct within the state’s borders. Every firearm manufacturer, in any state, could be targeted by AG Platkin’s weaponization of the legal system.

The problem with New Jersey’s law is in its weak legal foundation. New Jersey’s law violates the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause. New Jersey’s law is also preempted by the PLCAA under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. In 2005, Congress barred these sorts of baseless lawsuits when it passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA simply codified black letter tort law. The PLCAA keeps activist lawyers, and even state attorneys general, from placing the blame on members of the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of legal firearms lawfully manufactured and sold. No other industry in America had been targeted by such baseless, politically motivated lawsuits.

The PLCAA’s constitutionality has been upheld by every appellate court in the nation to consider the issue. Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court exclusively relied upon the PLCAA in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos when it unanimously rejected Mexico’s frivolous claims seeking to hold major firearm manufacturers liable for the lawless actions of narco-terrorist cartels within Mexico’s own borders. The Supreme Court explained that dismissing the lawsuit accords with the PLCAA’s “core purpose,” as Congress enacted the statute “to halt a flurry of lawsuits attempting to make manufacturers pay for the downstream harms resulting from misuse of their products.” It was a resounding victory for the PLCAA and the rule of law.

But the fight is not over. NSSF is challenging New Jersey’s law. It’s a clear violation of the PLCAA. It’s a brazen attack on a constitutionally-protected industry. AG Platkin’s abuse of the courts to impose New Jersey-style gun control in other states, or in his own for that matter, cannot be tolerated.

Shelby Baird Smith is the Chief Litigation Officer for NSSF.

You may also be interested in: 

Gov. Newsom Pulls Trigger on Striker-Fired Handgun Ban in California

Outside Influencers Maul the Truth About Black Bear Hunting