Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed
You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | RSS | More
TRENTON, NJ — A coalition of Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs has filed a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan, challenging the state’s complete ban on the possession of firearm suppressors. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint (Case No. 25-13527) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the state’s criminal prohibition on suppressors, also known as silencers. Plaintiffs include the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the American Suppressor Association, and several New Jersey residents, all of whom are legally eligible to own firearms.
Under current New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c)), suppressors are listed as prohibited weapons. Possession of a suppressor is a fourth-degree crime, punishable under state statute. While suppressors are regulated at the federal level under the National Firearms Act, they are lawful to possess in 42 states and registered by millions of Americans.
The plaintiffs argue that suppressors are not only in “common use” but are also essential for safe and effective firearm handling. According to the complaint, suppressors reduce hearing damage, mitigate recoil, improve training, enhance self-defense effectiveness, and decrease noise pollution — particularly for shooters training in residential or rural areas.
The lawsuit highlights that suppressors do not make gunshots silent, contrary to Hollywood portrayals. “They are loud, but they reduce decibel levels to safer thresholds,” the suit states, referencing data from the CDC and National Hearing Conservation Association that endorse suppressors for hearing protection.
Three named plaintiffs — all New Jersey residents — detail how the ban harms their safety and quality of life. One, a retired Marine and firearms instructor with service-related hearing loss, explained that he would use suppressors to protect what remains of his hearing if allowed. Another plaintiff, a veteran paramedic with the FDNY, cited occupational hearing damage as a key reason for seeking to use suppressors. A third owns a federally registered suppressor but is unable to store or use it at his home in New Jersey.
The lawsuit also points to recent legal developments, including a 2025 brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in another suppressor case (Peterson v. Garland), in which the government acknowledged that a total ban on suppressors would be unconstitutional.
Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue that New Jersey cannot justify its ban under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Suppressors, they contend, are neither “dangerous” nor “unusual” — the legal threshold for restrictions on arms under Supreme Court precedent.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., and Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. They seek a ruling that would declare New Jersey’s suppressor ban unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement.
If successful, the case could set a precedent impacting similar laws in the few remaining states that continue to prohibit suppressor ownership.
New Jersey has not yet filed a response to the complaint.
The case is Padua et al. v. Platkin et al., No. 25-13527, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
