Anti-Second Amendment states want nothing more than to force the firearms industry out of business. This is just another scheme to circumvent the Constitution by claiming that governments are not banning weapons but merely holding manufacturers “accountable.”

Unfortunately for gun rights, a setback was suffered Thursday. A federal court ruled that New Jersey may sue gun manufacturers under the guise of the state’s “public nuisance” law.

The unanimous ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the litigation filed by the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) was premature. The judges acknowledged that the New Jersey public nuisance law is vague, which is a good sign for future legal action.

However, the panel ruled that the NSSF’s suit was filed too early. Judge Stephanos Bibas noted, “The National Shooting Sports Foundation challenges a new state gun law as violating its members’ constitutional rights. But we see little evidence that enforcement is looming.”

The law was signed into existence in July 2022 by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D). Its clear intent was to establish a way for the state attorney general to file suit against local gun dealers.

Anti-gun lawmakers attempted to find a pathway to work around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which operates as a shield for gun manufacturers from exactly such activist measures. It protects the industry from suits involving misuse of its products by third parties. 

The NSSF filed legal action in November before the law took effect. A federal judge sided with the gun rights organization and blocked the legislation from being enforced in a preliminary ruling. 

However, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) appealed the decision, and the panel concurred that the law jumped the gun.

Bibas wrote that to block a law before it is enforced and harm demonstrated, “the plaintiff must show that the stakes are high and close at hand. Normally, that means constitutional rights are at issue, those rights are threatened by significant penalties, and those penalties might well be imposed.”

With all due respect, constitutional rights clearly are at issue and those rights are threatened by oppressive legal action against lawful businesses. That is obviously New Jersey’s intent, and this legal battle is far from over.