Key Takeaways
- A federal judge allowed the NRA to join the Second Amendment lawsuit against New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law.
- The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the Supreme Court’s Bruen test regarding historical firearm regulation.
- The lawsuit is consolidated with another case challenging the same law, highlighting its constitutional issues.
- State lawyers tried to exclude the NRA, but the judge found their delay arguments unconvincing and efficient to add the NRA to the case.
- The plaintiffs feel optimistic due to previous rulings against similar laws, asserting New Jersey’s law may also be unconstitutional.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
CAMDEN, N.J. — A federal magistrate judge has cleared the way for the National Rifle Association to join the Second Amendment lawsuit against New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law, adding the country’s largest gun-rights group to a case the state has been defending since 2024.
In an opinion and order filed June 22, U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill granted a motion by the existing plaintiffs to amend their complaint and bring the NRA in as a co-plaintiff. He decided the question on the papers, without oral argument.
The challenge targets N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-3(i), which bars residents from buying more than one handgun in any 30-day period. The plaintiffs argue the limit cannot survive the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, which forces the state to prove a gun law fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The plaintiffs who filed the motion are Matthew Struck, Daniel Francisco, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Their suit, Struck v. Platkin, was consolidated last June with a parallel case, Benton v. Platkin, brought by Christian Benton, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation. Both cases raise the same constitutional attack on the same law.
The case name is a holdover. It dates to when Matthew Platkin was attorney general. Platkin left office in January, and New Jersey’s defense now belongs to Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. Patrick Callahan, the state police superintendent named alongside him, retired at the end of 2025, and Acting Superintendent Jeanne Hengemuhle now holds that post.
State lawyers fought to keep the NRA out, arguing the plaintiffs waited too long. The deadline to add parties had passed in July 2025, months before the November motion. Skahill rejected that argument.
The court found the delay was driven by the NRA’s own timing, not any lack of diligence. The group did not retain the plaintiffs’ counsel until mid-October 2025, and the plaintiffs moved to add it about a month later. The judge found good cause for the late amendment and no real prejudice to the state.
More from USA Carry:
Skahill also pointed out that bringing the NRA into this case is more efficient than forcing it to file a separate, identical lawsuit. Folding the group in conserves the court’s resources and avoids duplicative litigation.
The order is narrow. It decides who gets to be in the case, not whether the law is constitutional. That fight is still ahead.
The plaintiffs have reason for confidence. The Ninth Circuit struck down California’s nearly identical one-gun-a-month limit in Nguyen v. Bonta, a ruling both groups have leaned on, and the NRA argues New Jersey cannot meet its historical burden either, noting that founding-era Americans routinely bought handguns in pairs. FPC President Brandon Combs called New Jersey’s ban “unconstitutional, full stop” when the group moved to add the NRA.
I will keep tracking Struck v. Platkin as it heads toward a ruling on the merits.
