Third Circuit Says NSSF Can Keep Suing New Jersey Over Gun Industry Liability Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Tuesday, September 8, that the National Shooting Sports Foundation can proceed with its lawsuit challenging a New Jersey law that exposes gun makers and sellers to civil liability for what the state calls a "public nuisance." The decision doesn't settle whether the law is constitutional. It clears NSSF to argue that question in front of a judge.

The law, known as A1765, bars gun industry members from "knowingly or recklessly" creating or contributing to a public nuisance through the sale, manufacturing, distribution, or marketing of firearms. It also requires companies to adopt "reasonable controls" over those activities. NSSF, the firearm industry's trade association, argues the law is preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, and separately violates the Commerce Clause, First Amendment, and Second Amendment.

A Two-Year Procedural Fight

NSSF first sued over A1765 shortly after it took effect. A district court initially granted an injunction blocking the law, but the Third Circuit tossed that complaint as premature, ruling in an earlier decision that NSSF's fears were too speculative since New Jersey hadn't yet enforced the law against any company.

New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, brought enforcement lawsuits against several gun industry members, including GLOCK Inc. The state's complaint alleges GLOCK bears responsibility when criminals illegally obtain and install machine gun conversion devices, commonly called switches, on its pistols, turning semi-automatic handguns into fully automatic weapons.

After that enforcement action, NSSF filed an amended complaint in February 2025 and asked the district court to reopen its case. This time the district court agreed NSSF had standing to sue, but denied the group's request for an injunction, citing the 1971 Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, which generally bars federal courts from interfering in ongoing state proceedings.

The Third Circuit's Reasoning

Younger abstention requires three conditions: an ongoing state proceeding involving the federal plaintiff, an important state interest, and an adequate chance to raise constitutional claims in that state proceeding. NSSF is not a party to New Jersey's enforcement action against GLOCK, a fact the court leaned on directly.

New Jersey argued Younger should still apply because a federal ruling that A1765 is unconstitutional would effectively hand GLOCK a defense in the state's case. The Third Circuit rejected that logic, noting that any constitutional challenge to a state statute will, almost by definition, have some effect on pending state enforcement. That alone can't be enough to shut the courthouse door.

The court identified what it described as a Catch-22 in New Jersey's position: sue before enforcement and get dismissed for lack of standing, sue after enforcement and get dismissed under Younger. "Because NSSF, and its members, are entitled to their own day in court, we reject New Jersey's proposed rule," the panel wrote, according to NSSF's own release on the ruling.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane called it a major breakthrough. "This is a tremendous legal hurdle that has been cleared to permit our challenge to be heard in court," Keane said. "We are confident that New Jersey's naked attempt to undermine the will of Congress and bankrupt firearm manufacturers and sellers through frivolous lawsuits will not stand legal review."

The Case for the Law

New Jersey's law didn't come from nowhere. Machine gun conversion devices, sold illegally online and through underground channels, have been tied to a spike in mass-casualty shootings involving modified semi-automatic pistols, a problem the ATF and multiple state prosecutors have flagged publicly for years. Advocates for laws like A1765 argue that PLCAA was never meant to give manufacturers blanket immunity when their products end up modified for mass criminal use, and that a public nuisance theory tied to marketing and distribution practices can fit within PLCAA's own carve-outs for violations of state and federal law. That's a real, live legal argument, and the Third Circuit's ruling doesn't resolve it. It just says the argument gets heard.

What Happens Next

The case now goes back to the district court, which must decide NSSF's request for a preliminary injunction on the actual merits, not on procedural grounds. That means a judge will have to weigh whether A1765 is preempted by federal law and whether it survives constitutional scrutiny.

Meanwhile, New Jersey's enforcement lawsuit against GLOCK in state court continues on a separate track. Whether a federal ruling striking down A1765 would end that case, or whether GLOCK's state court defense stands or falls on its own facts, is a question the Third Circuit deliberately left open.