By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— Governor Phil Murphy’s crusade against the Firearms Industry, will it be successful now that he is no longer in charge?
New Jersey 2025 Election’s effect on Governor Murphy’s crusade against the Firearms industry
The 2025 election results
Matthew J. Platkin is not an elected New Jersey Attorney General; the position is an appointed, not elected, office in New Jersey. Governor Phil Murphy nominated him on Feb. 3, 2022, and he became Acting Attorney General on Feb. 14. He was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on Sept. 29, 2022.
In New Jersey, the Attorney General is appointed by the governor and must be confirmed by the state Senate, rather than elected by the people. Proposals have been made in recent years to make the office an elected position, but these have not been approved.
In New Jersey, the Attorney General serves a four-year term that runs concurrently with the governor’s term, beginning and ending on the exact January inauguration dates outlined in the state constitution. There are no term limits for the New Jersey Attorney General, so the same individual can be reappointed for additional four-year terms if the current governor and the Senate choose to do so.
Since the Attorney General’s term is directly linked to the governor’s term and the office is filled through gubernatorial appointment with Senate confirmation, the AG’s service is structurally connected to the administration that appoints them. Recent reports on Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill’s transition suggest she is moving toward choosing a new attorney general, with names such as former First Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and other former federal prosecutors being publicly floated as leading contenders. These reports emphasize that Platkin’s term will end with Murphy in January 2026 and portray the AG position as open, rather than indicating any plan to reappoint Platkin.
The main force behind New Jersey’s efforts for stricter gun laws has been Governor Murphy. Now that he is no longer in office, it is unlikely that Sherrill will continue that effort, as there is very little more she can push for in terms of restrictions in the state.
NSSF v. Platkin;, Case number: 3:22-cv-06646.
However, there is still strong resistance from the NJ firearms industry, FFL dealers, and gun owners, which the new Attorney General will need to address. The current litigation can be split into two main areas. First, Gov. Murphy’s support for the 2022 New Jersey Firearms Industry Public Safety Act, and second, support for the pre-2025 state gun control law framework. In this report, we focus on the current litigation related to the first area: the implementation of the 2022 New Jersey Firearms Industry Public Safety Act.
As a result of this law, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is actively challenging New Jersey’s 2022 law, claiming it violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and several constitutional provisions. The NSSF previously sued to block the law; that case was dismissed for lack of standing at the time but has been amended and reopened after Platkin’s subsequent lawsuits. The NSSF and others see this as an effort to impose NJ-style gun control nationwide through litigation and as a violation of federal law.
That case is NSSF v. Platkin, case number: 3:22-cv-06646. The law states that “gun industry members” (including manufacturers, distributors, and marketers) may not knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance in the state through the sale, manufacture, distribution, importing, or marketing of “gun-related products.”
The statute broadly defines “gun‑related product” to include firearms, ammunition, magazines, components like frames and receivers, and accessories, thereby covering most products sold by companies such as SIG SAUER and Glock. It also establishes an exclusive cause of action allowing the Attorney General to sue “gun industry members” for harms that are “proximately caused” by their alleged unreasonable conduct, linking industry-wide civil liability to the AG’s discretion.
The statute allows liability if the Attorney General claims that a gun industry member’s actions were “unreasonable under all the circumstances” and that the member knowingly or recklessly created, maintained, or contributed to a public nuisance. This broad standard goes beyond violating specific sales-practice rules. Instead, it enables the AG to argue that otherwise lawful distribution or marketing choices are “unreasonable” conduct that creates a nuisance.
NSSF’s lawsuit and PLCAA arguments
The National Shooting Sports Foundation sued in federal court (NSSF v. Platkin) to block enforcement of the New Jersey statute, arguing that it is preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). PLCAA generally shields manufacturers and sellers from civil liability for harm caused by the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms, with a narrow “predicate exception” for suits based on knowing violations of statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms. NSSF contends that New Jersey’s broad public‑nuisance scheme does not qualify as such a predicate because it imposes generalized, open‑ended “reasonable controls” rather than specific, concrete obligations.
NSSF also claims that the law violates due process (due to vagueness and lack of fair notice), the First Amendment (by targeting and chilling gun advertising and marketing speech), the Second Amendment (by burdening lawful firearms commerce and acquisition), and the dormant Commerce Clause (by effectively regulating manufacturers and distributors nationwide whose products may reach New Jersey). A district judge initially blocked the law under PLCAA, but the Third Circuit later vacated that order and dismissed it on standing grounds; after Platkin started bringing actual enforcement actions, NSSF moved to reopen and amended its complaint to reflect the concrete threat to its members.
Tools to halt sales, recalls, and ads
The law authorizes injunctive relief, abatement, restitution, and other equitable remedies, enabling the Attorney General to request courts to halt additional sales, require product‑related corrective actions, and modify or restrict marketing practices. In 2025, Platkin used the statute, along with the Consumer Fraud Act, in a lawsuit against SIG SAUER regarding the P320 handgun, seeking to prevent further distribution of the P320 in New Jersey, mandate a recall of supposedly defective pistols, and stop what the state describes as deceptive, safety‑related advertising.
New Jersey has also employed the “reasonable controls” theory to pressure licensed retailers and has threatened Glock with similar litigation, emphasizing how the statute can serve as a tool to impose additional duties on gun‑industry commerce beyond federal and state requirements. The Attorney General’s complaints and settlements reveal a pattern: alleging violations of the Firearms Industry Public Safety Law and the Consumer Fraud Act simultaneously, then seeking injunctions, civil penalties, and modifications to advertising and sales practices that effectively remove or significantly restrict specific products from the New Jersey market.
How the law operates in practice
When combined with New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, the Firearms Industry Public Safety Law provides the Attorney General with a layered enforcement toolkit: public nuisance claims based on “unreasonable” controls and marketing, and consumer fraud claims based on allegedly deceptive safety representations. In the SIG SAUER P320 case, for example, the state alleges that the company’s failure to fix an alleged drop-fire and “un-commanded” discharge defect, along with its safety-focused advertising, violate both the “reasonable controls” requirement and the CFA, justifying a stop on sales, a product recall, and corrective advertising or communications to New Jersey buyers.
These enforcement actions also demonstrate NSSF’s “end‑run” theory: New Jersey is trying to use state‑law public‑nuisance and consumer‑fraud remedies for harms caused by criminal or unintended misuse of firearms, which Congress meant for PLCAA to protect, and doing so through legislation specifically crafted to fall within PLCAA’s predicate exception. The resulting litigation over standing, preemption, and constitutional limits on state nuisance‑style gun‑industry laws will determine whether New Jersey—and other states employing similar approaches—can keep using such statutes to restrict certain handgun models and to regulate the marketing practices of manufacturers like SIG SAUER and Glock.
New Jersey v. Sig Sauer: New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division (complaint captioned ESX‑C‑000217‑25.
This is a 2025 state‑court civil enforcement case in which the New Jersey Attorney General seeks to stop sales and force a recall of SIG’s P320 pistols, claiming they are defectively designed, deceptively marketed, and pose a public nuisance because they can fire without a trigger pull. The case is at the complaint stage; there has not yet been a judgment on the merits.
Core factual allegations
New Jersey alleges that the striker-fired P320 has a design flaw that allows it to be fully cocked with a round chambered, and due to inadequate internal safety mechanisms, it can discharge during routine handling, drops, or minor impacts without any trigger pull. The complaint cites at least ten incidents in New Jersey, including one in which an Orange, N.J., police detective was fatally wounded in 2023 when his holstered P320 discharged as he was preparing to clean it, along with multiple injuries to law enforcement officers and civilians.
Legal theories and statutes invoked
The State pleads multiple causes of action:
- Product liability and design defect under New Jersey law, based on the alleged propensity of the P320 to fire unintentionally during normal, foreseeable use.
- Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, alleging SIG falsely claimed the pistol was “enhanced’ in safety, drop-safe, and suitable as a duty weapon, while allegedly knowing about unintentional discharges and internal test failures.
- Claims under New Jersey’s 2022 Firearms Industry Public Safety Law, asserting that SIG’s sales and marketing of the P320 constitute “unreasonable conduct” that knowingly or recklessly creates or contributes to a public nuisance.
- Requested relief
- New Jersey asks for sweeping injunctive and monetary remedies:
- An order halting all further distribution and sale of P320 pistols in New Jersey.
- A mandatory recall, at SIG’s expense, of P320s already sold within the state, including those issued to law enforcement agencies.
- Civil penalties, damages, restitution, and abatement of the alleged public nuisance, including costs for replacing affected service weapons and addressing injuries and risks to residents.
Sig Sauer’s response and broader context
Sig Sauer publicly denies that the P320 is defective, describes the New Jersey lawsuit as politically motivated “lawfare” against the firearms industry, and references previous cases where juries or courts have rejected defect claims involving the P320. Industry groups such as NSSF see the case as a test of New Jersey’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law and a workaround of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, while gun-violence prevention advocates view it as a way to push for design changes, disclosures, and recalls for allegedly dangerous firearms.
New Jersey v. Glock
New Jersey v. Glock: The caption used in the pleadings and in the Oct. 14, 2025, opinion is Matthew J. Platkin v. Glock Inc., et al., but it is commonly referred to in media and commentary as “New Jersey v. Glock.” Chancery docket number: ESX‑C‑000286‑24. Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County.
New Jersey v. Glock is an ongoing case in the New Jersey Superior Court, involving public nuisance and product defect claims. The State alleges that Glock is responsible for designing, marketing, and selling semiautomatic pistols that are allegedly too easily converted into illegal machine guns using
Glock switches.
In October 2025, the court denied Glock’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the Attorney General’s claims to proceed to discovery and potentially to trial.
Core allegations
New Jersey’s complaint, filed under the 2022 Firearms Industry Public Safety Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:58‑35), alleges that Glock pistols are defectively designed because inexpensive auto sears can easily convert them to fully automatic fire and that Glock was aware of this risk but failed to redesign the platform or implement sufficient “reasonable controls.” The State also claims violations of machine‑gun prohibitions and consumer‑protection laws, framing Glock’s conduct as a public nuisance and as product liability based on foreseeable criminal misuse once switches became widespread.
Glock’s defenses
Glock moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that: (1) the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) preempts the suit as a barred “qualified civil liability action”; (2) New Jersey’s public‑nuisance statute is unconstitutional on free‑speech, Second Amendment, due‑process, and dormant Commerce Clause grounds; and (3) product‑liability and proximate‑cause principles prevent liability for independent criminal misuse and aftermarket modifications. Glock also claimed that the New Jersey Product Liability Act cannot be used as a basis for a nuisance action by the Attorney General under the public‑nuisance statute.
The October 2025 ruling
Judge Lisa Adubato dismissed all of Glock’s arguments for dismissal, ruling that the complaint’s detailed claims of intentional design choices, aware statutory violations, and neglect to act amid increasing warnings are enough to fall within PLCAA’s predicate‑statute exception and to substantiate valid nuisance and product‑defect claims. The court also upheld the 2022 public‑nuisance law against Glock’s constitutional objections, concluding it is narrowly targeted at harmful industry practices affecting New Jersey residents and does not impose an unjustified burden on protected speech, gun ownership, or interstate commerce.
Requested relief and practical stakes
New Jersey seeks injunctive relief to force Glock to stop selling the allegedly “switch‑compatible” pistols in the state, redesign its products, and enforce stricter distribution and dealer controls, along with restitution and civil penalties related to the claimed machine‑gun‑related violence. The case is being closely monitored because if the State ultimately wins on the merits, it could serve as a leading example for using state public‑nuisance and consumer‑protection laws to target firearm manufacturers despite PLCAA, especially in areas with firearms‑specific nuisance laws similar to New Jersey’s.
