With the One Big Beautiful Bill zeroing out taxes on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons”, a new front in Second Amendment litigation has opened up. We’ve already seen lawsuits filed challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act itself, and on Friday 2A organizations filed two new lawsuits challenging the state-level bans on suppressors and short-barreled rifles in the Garden State.
The coalition taking on the suppressor ban is comprised of the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Safari Club International, Second Amendment Foundation, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, and the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate; as well as the company Silencer Shop.
Silencer Shop and the ASA are also supporting a suit to overturn the suppressor ban in Illinois called Anderson v. Raoul, so this is at least the second state-level challenge to suppressor bans, which are currently on the books in eight states; California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
In New Jersey, possession of a suppressor is a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine, even if the device is legally registered under the NFA. As NJFOS Director of Legal Operations Joe Loporto said in a press release announcing the new lawsuit, “there is nothing ‘common sense’ about a total ban on suppressors”, describing the devices as “an arm that can only be used by the people of this state to exercise their core Constitutional rights in a safer manner.”
Despite the characterization of suppressors as “tools for assassins” that negate the sound of gunshots, suppressors reduce the noise of gunfire by about 30 decibels; making them about as loud as a jackhammer instead of a jet engine.
That might not sound like much, but for gun owners who regularly spend time at the range it can make a huge difference. And as someone who suffers from tinnitus, I support anything that can help others avoid hearing damage… especially when the bans are at odds with the national tradition of gun ownership and the plain text of the Second Amendment.
ASA President and Executive Director Knox Williams called the Garden State ban an “unacceptable violation of Second Amendment rights” by depriving gun owners the ability to possess “an essential safety device that protects the hearing and preserves situational awareness for millions of gun owners and sportsmen.” And SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut pointed out that former President Theodore Roosevelt was known to use suppressors while hunting, as well as their common use in Europe.
“Lawmakers rely on Hollywood’s characterization of these tools to justify keeping their heads in the proverbial sand,” Kraut said, adding, “we look forward to working with our partners to overturn this unconstitutional ban.”
Scott Bach, head of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, meanwhile predicts the lawsuit will “send shockwaves through the New Jersey statehouse, where lawmakers pretend that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to them.”
Maybe so, though don’t expect to see Democrats move to repeal the ban rather than have anti-gun Attorney General Matthew Platkin defend it in court. New Jersey legislators (including, sadly, too many Republicans) in Trenton are too hostile to the right to keep and bear arms to ever voluntarily do something that would benefit gun owners… but thankfully we still have recourse in the federal courts.
The second lawsuit, challenging the Garden State prohibition on short-barreled firearms, was launched by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Englishtown Borough Mayor Daniel Francisco, who was last in the news for refunding $150 of the $200 concealed carry permit fees for residents of his community.
The complaint is pretty straightforward:
Rifles that have barrel lengths of less than sixteen inches or overall lengths of less than twenty-six inches—short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—are popular. And except in New Jersey and a small handful of jurisdictions, SBRs are commonly chosen for lawful purposes such as self-defense, training, competition, and other lawful purposes.
Indeed, rifles that have shorter barrel or overall lengths are advantageous to users in close quarters, such as the defense of a home, because it enables the firearm user to be more maneuverable moving through and around obstacles like doorways and corners. They also can be lighter or easier for some to hold and use effectively, which can enable more controlled and accurate placement of shots fired at a target. At bottom, an SBR is simply a rifle that is more compact and easily controlled and slightly longer and less portable than a handgun.
Rifles—including SBRs—are unquestionably “arms” under the SecondAmendment’s text. And rifles—including SBRs—are in common use in the United States. The ATF has reported that, as of May 2021, there were 532,725 SBRs registered with the agency. Three years later, the ATF reported that the total SBR registrations increased to 870,286. Given the trend in SBR registrations, there maybe over a million short-barreled rifles registered with the ATF today. And crimes using rifles of any kind—let alone SBRs—are exceptionally rare. Because they are rarely used in crimes, it must follow that SBRs are in common use for lawful purposes.
FPC President Brandon Combs says the lawsuit “builds on FPC’s landmark victory against New Jersey’s AR-15 ban, along with our recent wins against arms bans in states like California and Illinois.
“Supreme Court precedent makes clear that arms in common use for lawful purposes—like the rifles at issue here—are fully protected by the Second Amendment,” Combs added.
Platkin and his staff are going to be busy mounting defenses to these bans. I’m sure he’ll try to argue that since these items are restricted under the NFA they’re not in common use, and might even try to argue that they’re not “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment, but given the millions of these suppressors and SBRs that are in the hands of lawfuli owners, I don’t know that he’s going to have much luck… at least if the judges overseeing these cases aren’t so blinded by anti-gun ideology that they put their desire for gun control ahead of their concern for the Constitution.
Editor’s Note: 2A groups and gun owners across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts, as well as their legislative and legal successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
