By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Courts of Appeals: Calce v. City of New York: Case No.: 23-1900: Case is being appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and NRA-ILA filing an amicus; State Courts: New Jersey: State of NJ v. RR Outdoors, LLC d/b/a Gultch’s Gun World: ammunition sales; Washington – Thurston County Superior Court: Sig Sauer v. Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission: The Washington State Training Commission banned the use of Sig Sauer P320 pistol in October 2024 and then made that ban permanent in February 2025.
SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess.
Courts of Appeals (Circuit Court)
New York: Second Circuit
Calce v. City of New York: Case No.: 23-1900: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As of July 21, the Firearms Policy Coalition announced that appellate briefing had commenced, with the plaintiffs continuing to challenge the constitutionality of New York City’s stun gun and taser ban. On July 25, 2025, the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief. The brief argues that the district court (Case No. 1:21-cv-08208) erred by placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove stun guns and tasers are “common” for Second Amendment protection, asserting that Supreme Court precedent presumes all bearable arms, including non-firearms, are protected unless the government proves otherwise. The brief contends that New York City’s ban is unconstitutional because the government failed to demonstrate that stun guns and tasers, widely owned for self-defense, are both dangerous and unusual as required for a ban under Supreme Court rulings.
Calce v. City of New York: Case No: 1:21-cv-08208 (S.D.N.Y.): District Court
This is a civil rights lawsuit filed on October 5, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging New York City’s ban on electronic arms, specifically stun guns and tasers. The plaintiffs, including Nunzio Calce, other individuals, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, argued that the bans violated their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Judge is Edgardo Ramos.
State Courts
New Jersey – Cumberland County
On July 25, 2025, NJ Attorney General bragged on x.com about this case he filed against Butch’s Gun World.
State of NJ v. RR Outdoors, LLC d/b/a Gultch’s Gun World, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division – Cumberland County: AG Platkin alleges violation of New Jersey’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-35). The lawsuit asserted that Butch’s Gun World, a Vineland gun dealer, sold large quantities of ammunition—including AR-15-type rifle and pistol ammunition—as well as magazines to first-time, undercover customers in March and June 2024, accepting cash and making no effort to verify the legal ability of the buyers to possess firearms. In both transactions, store employees failed to ask for identification, permits, or any credentials, violating the 2022 law that requires gun dealers to implement controls and checks for such sales. In a post on x.com news2a.com summarized the statute that Platkin is using to file this case:
“Upon reviewing the statute cited by Ramanathan, 2C:58-35.3.a(2), it’s evident that New Jersey is leveraging the relatively new and subjective “public nuisance” law to target these two FFLs. This law was specifically passed to target the firearms industry as a way to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Similar to New Jersey’s “red flag” laws, the “public nuisance” law sets an extremely low threshold for legal action against an industry already facing some of the strictest regulations in the country. The low bar for offensive use of this law is made plain in the text of 2C:58-35:
“3(b) – Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that a gun industry member has engaged in or is engaging in conduct that violates subsection a. of this section, the Attorney General may commence an action…
“3(c) – To prevail in an action uder this section, the Attorney General shall not be required to demonstrate that the gun industry member acted with the purpose to engage in any public nuisance or otherwise cause harm to the public. The Attorney General shall not be required to demonstrate any special injury to be granted the relief authorized by this section.
“Numerous statements issued at the press conference were technically inaccurate and misleading, including a statement that bump stocks, “convert weapons into machine guns.”
“Platkin and Ramanathan created new terms and statements that are not standard in the firearms industry, and are unprovable, such as, “AR15 rifle ammunition” which they described as “exquisitely lethal.” It should be noted that .223 ammunition can be fired from a number of different platforms other than AR-15 style firearms, including bolt action rifles and pistols. There is no scientific evidence that it’s any more lethal than any other type of ammunition.
“Other bombastic statements included an assertion by Platkin that:
“Laws that say everyone is entitled to a machine gun in their back pocket mean more people are going to die.”
On March 24, 2025, Judge Ramos denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted the defendants’ cross-motion, upholding the city’s stun gun ban.
Washington – Thurston County Superior Court
Sig Sauer v. Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission: In a YouTube video by William Kirk, the President of Washington Gun Law, discusses a lawsuit filed in June 2025 after the commission banned the use of the Sig P320, M17, and M18 pistols at all its training facilities. This issue arose following an alleged unintentional discharge of the P320 at a facility, which led to a temporary suspension in October 2024 that was made permanent in February 2025. The ban impacts many law enforcement agencies in Washington, especially those relying on WSCJTC’s facilities for training and that have issued the P320 or its variants as service pistols, such as the Bellevue, Kirkland, and Anacortes Police Departments.
Sig Sauer’s lawsuit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court, centers on several legal arguments:
- Exceeding Authority: Sig asserts that Monica Alexander, the executive director of WSCJTC, acted beyond her legal authority by enacting the permanent ban. Sig claims the director lacked the requisite statutory power to make this decision.
- Failure to Follow Process: The lawsuit argues that the commission did not follow the proper rulemaking procedures required by Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and relevant statutes. Sig maintains that proper public notice, hearings, or established rulemaking protocols were not observed, making the ban an invalid administrative rule.
- State Preemption: Sig Sauer invokes Washington’s firearms preemption law, arguing that only the state legislature—not an administrative agency or executive—has the authority to regulate firearms, so the WSCJTC’s action improperly assumes legislative powers.
- Constitutional and Operational Concerns: Sig claims the ban may infringe on constitutional rights (referring to Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution) and places law enforcement agencies at a disadvantage by preventing recruits from training with their issued sidearms.
- Real-World Impact: The company alleges that WSCJTC’s decision has led to additional bans by other agencies, negatively affecting both Sig Sauer and police departments using the P320. Sig Sauer seeks several remedies from the court: setting aside and reversing the ban, allowing use of the P320, M17, and M18 at all WSCJTC facilities. In the alternative, enjoining enforcement of the ban. Additionally, Sig asks the court to prevent the executive director from making certain public statements about the P320 outside her official duties.
- After Kirk posted the above video, Kirk has also shared a video explaining the history of the Sig Sauer P20, and he recommends Tom Grieve’s channel for a complete background on Sig Sauer’s firearms and their issues.
Note: A YouTube video by well-known firearms commentator Colion Noir about three days ago discusses the Sig Sauer possible problem with its P320 variant used by the U.S. Military. That firearms has the Military name of Sig M18. In his discussion of an incident where an airman was killed by a bullet from his Sig M18 when it was on a table and in its holster. After listening to this information, I would predict that this lawsuit is not just about the one alleged problem with the P320.
