NSSF, the firearms industry trade association, is trying reopen its NSSF v. Platkin case because the attorney general for the state of New Jersey, Matthew J. Platkin, is seeking to enforce a law he previously said he wouldn’t enforce. Did AG Platkin’s office lie to the court, or misrepresent the AG’s intentions, or did the office merely change its mind about prosecuting the state’s anti-PLCAA law against Glock, Inc., and other industry members? You be the judge.
“As feared, Attorney General Platkin has weaponized the judicial system against firearm manufacturers who have done nothing but engage in lawful commerce and have not violated any federal or state statutes. New Jersey is seeking to blame Glock and other industry members for the actions of criminals,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
Background: NSSF has filed a motion to reopen the NSSF v. Platkin case in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The motion and amended complaint were filed after New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin brought a lawsuit against Glock, Inc., alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals modify and alter well-designed and lawfully-sold Glock pistols by illegally obtaining, possessing, and installing a “switch” into the handgun.
NSSF previously sued to block New Jersey’s law from taking effect, but that challenge was dismissed by a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit because the court determined that NSSF lacked standing at the time to challenge the law.
The Office of Attorney General Platkin told the appellate court that it didn’t intend to sue firearm manufacturers for engaging in lawful commerce or placing liability on firearm manufacturers for the criminal misconduct of third parties beyond their control. They promised to only sue for a company’s own misconduct.
In dismissing the case, Appellate Court Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote, “[W]e see little evidence that enforcement is looming. Because the Foundation has jumped the gun, its challenge must be dismissed.”
NSSF’s amended complaint NSSF v. Platkin argues that New Jersey’s public nuisance law flouts the will of Congress and undermines the U.S. Constitution because it is preempted by the bipartisan PLCAA. Additionally, it violates the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause.
Keane said, “Attorney General Platkin’s lawsuit is the very definition of ‘lawfare’ and should be rejected by the court. The statute should be struck down as unconstitutional.”
New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s frivolous lawsuit against Glock was filed shortly after the now-shuttered Biden-Harris White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to sue Glock on behalf of the City of Chicago, advancing the same claim based on a similar Illinois statute. Once Chicago sued, Attorney General Platkin and a group of 15 other states threatened to sue Glock.
New Jersey has now followed through on its threat. NSSF now unquestionably has standing to revive its case that was dismissed without prejudice.
NSSF is separately challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois statute.
