A federal appeals court ruled that the firearms industry has standing to challenge New Jersey’s public nuisance law, reviving a case that could determine whether the state may impose civil liability for otherwise lawful gun sales and marketing.

A federal appeals court has revived the gun industry’s challenge to a sweeping New Jersey liability law, ruling that the state’s enforcement campaign created a credible threat of harm sufficient to give manufacturers and sellers their day in federal court.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, has legal standing to contest the statute and that a lower court should not have declined to consider the trade group’s claims.

The decision sends the case back to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, where NSSF is seeking a preliminary injunction against the law. The group argues that the statute conflicts with federal protections for the firearms industry and violates the First, Second, and 14th Amendments, as well as the Constitution’s restrictions on state regulation of interstate commerce.

“In the years since NSSF I, New Jersey has commenced multiple enforcement actions against gun industry members that allege otherwise lawful yet ‘unreasonable’ conduct,” Judge David Porter wrote for the panel.

That record, the court concluded, transformed the industry’s fears from speculation into a “credible” and “substantial” threat of enforcement.

What the New Jersey law allows

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed Assembly Bill 1765 into law on July 5, 2022. The enacted statute authorizes the state attorney general to bring civil actions against firearm manufacturers, sellers, distributors, importers, and marketers accused of creating or contributing to a public nuisance.

The law requires members of the gun industry to establish and enforce “reasonable controls” governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of firearms and related products.

It also prohibits a gun industry member from knowingly or recklessly contributing to a public nuisance through conduct that is either unlawful or “unreasonable under all the circumstances.”

The attorney general may seek injunctions, restitution, damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The law says the state does not have to prove that a defendant intended to create a public nuisance or cause harm.

New Jersey lawmakers said the measure was needed to hold irresponsible companies accountable for commercial practices that contribute to illegal gun trafficking and violence. NSSF maintains that the statute’s expansive language could impose liability on companies engaged in lawful commerce because of crimes later committed by third parties.

That dispute brings the state law into potential conflict with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

Federal law limits gun-industry lawsuits

Congress enacted PLCAA in 2005 to generally prevent manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from being held responsible for harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms that functioned as designed.

The federal law does not provide absolute immunity. It includes exceptions for defective products, negligent entrustment, breach of contract, and cases in which a company knowingly violates a state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.

New Jersey contends that its public nuisance statute falls within those exceptions. NSSF argues that states cannot circumvent PLCAA simply by enacting broadly worded statutes that relabel lawful firearm commerce as a public nuisance.

The appeals court did not decide which interpretation is correct.

It found that NSSF presented legally plausible claims that the New Jersey statute could be preempted by PLCAA, applied beyond the state’s borders, or used against constitutionally protected commercial activity.

Six enforcement actions changed the case

NSSF first sued in 2022, shortly after the law took effect. A federal district judge initially blocked enforcement, but the 3rd Circuit lifted that injunction in 2023 and dismissed the case because New Jersey had not yet used the law. At the time, the court said the possibility of enforcement against NSSF members was too speculative.

New Jersey subsequently brought six civil enforcement actions against members of the firearms industry. The defendants included Glock, Sig Sauer, FSS Armory, Point Blank Guns and Ammo, Butch’s Gun World, Eagle Shows, and JSD Supply.

The state accused Glock of selling pistols that can allegedly be converted into machine guns with illegal conversion devices commonly known as switches. New Jersey’s lawsuit seeks design changes and other relief. Glock has disputed the state’s claims.

New Jersey also sued Sig Sauer over allegations that its P320 pistol can discharge without an intentional trigger pull. Sig Sauer has repeatedly defended the safety of the pistol and challenged allegations of unintended discharges.

Other cases involved allegedly inadequate firearm storage, ammunition and magazine sales, and Pennsylvania gun show transactions involving products that New Jersey classifies as illegal ghost guns.

The appeals court emphasized that some of New Jersey’s claims target conduct that is not independently prohibited under state or federal law but that the attorney general considers unreasonable.

“New Jersey’s six civil enforcement actions under A1765 against gun industry members render the threat of imminent enforcement substantial,” Porter wrote.

Lower court must now address the challenge

After New Jersey began using the statute, NSSF successfully moved to reopen its federal case. The district court agreed that the trade group now had standing but declined to consider its request for an injunction under a doctrine known as Younger abstention.

That doctrine generally discourages federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings.

The 3rd Circuit found that the doctrine did not apply because NSSF itself is not a defendant in New Jersey’s state court enforcement cases. Although Glock and Sig Sauer are NSSF members, the trade organization is legally distinct from those companies and does not own, control, or manage them.

The panel warned that New Jersey’s position would create a legal “Catch-22”: NSSF’s lawsuit would be premature before the state enforced the law, but barred after enforcement began.

“NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’” the opinion said.

The ruling is an important procedural victory for the firearms industry, but it is not a final judgment against New Jersey’s statute. The district court must now consider NSSF’s request for preliminary relief and eventually determine whether the law conflicts with federal statutes or constitutional protections.

New Jersey’s liability law remains in effect unless a court separately blocks it. The latest decision ensures only that the industry’s objections cannot be dismissed without a federal court confronting their substance.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says the Second Amendment protects self-defense but does not necessarily prevent states and localities from restricting semiautomatic rifles and ammunition magazines they consider exceptionally dangerous.

The nation’s Catholic bishops are asking the Supreme Court to preserve room for state and local governments to regulate AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, placing the church leadership organization in the middle of one of the term’s most consequential Second Amendment battles.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief Friday in two consolidated cases challenging restrictions in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.

The bishops submitted the brief “in support of neither party” and expressly declined to endorse a specific outcome. Their legal reasoning favors allowing elected governments to impose what the organization calls “focused regulation” on weapons that pose “exceptional dangers to innocent life and the public peace.”

The filing argues that the constitutional right to self-defense and targeted firearm regulations are not inherently incompatible.

Two gun cases before the Supreme Court

The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, challenge laws that prohibit certain semiautomatic firearms commonly classified by lawmakers as “assault weapons.” The restrictions also cover certain ammunition magazines.

Gun rights advocates argue that AR-15-style rifles are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans and are therefore protected arms in “common use” for lawful purposes. They maintain that the bans violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Illinois and Connecticut officials contend that the weapons are unusually dangerous, have repeatedly been used in mass shootings, and may be regulated without eliminating access to firearms commonly used for self-defense.

The Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to hear the consolidated cases. Oral arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2. The justices have not ruled on the merits, and the challenged restrictions remain in effect while the litigation continues.

Bishops defend self-defense — and regulation

The bishops’ brief acknowledges that American law and Catholic teaching both recognize a right to legitimate self-defense. In some circumstances, the filing says, defending oneself or another person can become a “grave duty.”

But the organization rejects the argument that recognizing that right prevents governments from regulating any firearm capable of being used defensively.

“The Church thus recognizes legitimate defense as a right and, in some circumstances, a grave duty,” the brief states. “But it also teaches that force must remain ordered to the protection of life and accompanied by responsibility toward innocent persons.”

The bishops invoke Catholic social teaching on human dignity, the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity generally holds that decisions should be made at the lowest competent level of government or society.

Applied to the pending cases, that principle supports giving states and local governments some discretion to respond to threats facing their communities, the brief argues.

The USCCB cautions that local authority cannot be used to redefine or disregard the Second Amendment. It nevertheless argues that one nationwide constitutional standard does not necessarily require identical firearm policies in every jurisdiction.

Dispute over history and “common use”

At the center of the cases is how courts should apply the Supreme Court’s history-focused test for evaluating gun restrictions.

Under Bruen and the court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Rahimi, modern firearm laws must be consistent with the principles underlying the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. A modern law does not need a precise historical “twin,” particularly when it responds to technological changes or social problems the Founders never encountered.

The bishops argue that courts should examine broader historical principles, including the tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Their brief describes modern semiautomatic rifles covered by the bans as substantially different in capability from firearms available during the founding era.

The filing also warns the justices against treating ownership numbers as the decisive constitutional test. It cites 2023 Washington Post polling indicating that approximately 6% of Americans own an AR-15-style rifle.

That figure does not resolve how many such firearms are in circulation or whether they are in common use under Supreme Court precedent. Gun rights organizations estimate that Americans own tens of millions of modern semiautomatic rifles and argue that widespread lawful possession places them squarely within the Second Amendment’s protection.

The bishops contend that commercial popularity alone should not permanently prevent lawmakers from regulating a class of weapons. Otherwise, they argue, rapid sales before a prohibition could effectively place a firearm beyond future regulation.

Evidence remains contested

The USCCB also cites research suggesting that assault-weapons and high-capacity-magazine restrictions may reduce casualties in mass shootings. The brief acknowledges that the underlying evidence is not conclusive.

A RAND review of gun policy research found limited evidence that high-capacity magazine bans reduce mass shootings and that assault weapons bans reduce injuries in school shootings. RAND has cautioned that researchers face substantial difficulty isolating the effects of individual laws, particularly because states frequently enact several firearm policies together.

The bishops argue that legislatures should not be required to wait for scientific certainty before acting to protect innocent life. Critics respond that inconclusive evidence cannot justify prohibiting commonly owned firearms protected by the Constitution.

What the brief does — and does not — say

Despite offering a framework favorable to firearm regulation, the bishops stopped short of asking the court to uphold every provision under review.

“Amicus expresses no view on the ultimate disposition of these cases or on the facial validity of the challenged provisions,” the filing states.

The brief does not declare that all semiautomatic rifle bans are constitutional, nor does it ask the court to reject the Second Amendment claims outright. Instead, it urges the justices to recognize that local regulation of particularly lethal weapons can be consistent with both the nation’s historical traditions and Catholic teaching.

The court’s eventual ruling could determine the future of similar restrictions across the country. For now, the bishops have entered the debate with a carefully qualified position: The Constitution protects armed self-defense, but that protection does not automatically place every widely sold weapon beyond the reach of elected government.

The restriction would take effect only if an international standards organization determines that technology capable of screening every print file is feasible and publishes industry standards before July 2029.

California lawmakers have approved legislation that could eventually prohibit the sale of 3D printers without technology designed to recognize and block digital files used to manufacture firearms and machine gun conversion devices.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2047, known as the California Firearm Printing Prevention Act, on Aug. 31.

The state Senate approved the measure 30-10, and the Assembly concurred with the final amendments in a 60-18 vote. The bill now awaits action from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Despite its broad implications, the final proposal does not impose an immediate ban or require Californians to retrofit printers they already own.

Its restrictions would be triggered only if ASTM International, a private organization that develops voluntary technical standards, publishes standards for equipping 3D printers with firearm-blocking technology by July 1, 2029.

If ASTM does not produce those standards by the deadline, the California Department of Justice would have no further obligation to pursue the mandate, and the sales restriction would not take effect under the legislation.

Every Print File Would Be Screened

AB 2047 defines “firearm blocking technology” as hardware, firmware, or another integrated measure capable of preventing a 3D printer from beginning any job until its underlying file has been examined by a firearm-blueprint detection algorithm.

The software would have to determine that the file would not produce a firearm or a machine gun conversion device before permitting the printer to proceed.

A machine gun conversion device includes a part or combination of parts designed to convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, such as devices commonly known as Glock switches.

If ASTM publishes standards and determines that the technology is feasible, the California Department of Justice would have 24 months to issue state guidance or regulations.

One year after the department publishes those requirements, manufacturers would have to ensure that printers sold or transferred for payment in California include technology meeting the state’s minimum standards.

It would then become unlawful to “sell, offer for sale, or transfer for consideration” a noncompliant 3D printer within the state.

The final text of AB 2047 does not prohibit owning or using a printer purchased before the restriction takes effect. It also does not expressly ban Californians from privately giving away a printer without receiving payment.

Final Amendments Narrowed the Bill

The legislation changed substantially as it moved through the California Legislature.

Earlier versions directed the state Justice Department to design its own performance standards, required manufacturers to certify individual printer models, created civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, and made intentional circumvention of the blocking software a misdemeanor under certain circumstances.

Those provisions prompted strong opposition from digital rights advocates, 3D-printing businesses, open-source developers, and gun rights organizations.

The final version instead makes the mandate contingent upon ASTM first establishing industry standards and confirming that compliant technology is feasible.

It also no longer contains the earlier provisions explicitly criminalizing the intentional disabling or circumvention of blocking technology. Requirements for a state-maintained roster of approved printer models and the earlier $25,000 civil penalty were also removed.

The California Justice Department could still create a self-certification process requiring manufacturers to attest that their printer models comply with the final performance standards.

The agency would also be permitted to create additional definitions, requirements, exceptions, and technical processes beyond those included in the ASTM standards.

Supporters Point to ‘Ghost Guns’

Democratic Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced the bill with the backing of Everytown for Gun Safety.

“California has set a standard for the country in creating commonsense gun regulations and gun violence prevention work,” Bauer-Kahan said in support of an earlier version.

“AB 2047 continues this work by requiring that all three-dimensional printers sold in California are equipped with firearm blocking features to prohibit the printing of dangerous gun parts,” she added.

Supporters contend that increasingly affordable printers and downloadable blueprints allow people to manufacture unserialized “ghost guns” without undergoing background checks or complying with rules governing commercial firearm purchases.

A legislative committee analysis cited Everytown data claiming that law enforcement recoveries of 3D-printed guns increased by approximately 1,000 percent between 2020 and 2024.

The bill would not change California’s underlying laws governing homemade firearms. State law already prohibits unlicensed people from manufacturing certain firearms and requires privately made guns to comply with serialization and registration rules.

AB 2047 instead attempts to prevent prohibited printing by regulating the machines before a firearm file can be processed.

Critics Warn of Surveillance and False Positives

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has described mandatory scanning software as “censorware” and warned that the approach could restrict lawful speech, undermine open-source development, and create new opportunities for surveillance.

“Algorithmic print blocking will never work for its intended purpose,” the organization argued in an April critique.

The group said firearm components can resemble ordinary mechanical parts and warned that detection algorithms could mistakenly block lawful designs used by engineers, students, researchers, repair shops, and hobbyists.

Critics also argue that users intent on violating the law could alter digital blueprints, divide designs into multiple files, construct their own printers, or use older devices not covered by the sales mandate.

Some of the EFF’s strongest objections addressed provisions that lawmakers subsequently removed, including criminal penalties for circumventing the software and restrictions affecting open-source firmware. Its broader concerns about file screening, privacy, false positives, manufacturer lock-in, and technical workarounds still apply to the final framework.

Entertainment Industry Wins Exemption

The legislation exempts printers used exclusively to manufacture props for the entertainment industry — a significant carveout in a state with large film, television, and theatrical production sectors.

The Justice Department could create additional exemptions, provided that officials determine they are consistent with the law’s stated purpose of preventing the illegal manufacture of firearms and machine gun conversion devices.

If Newsom signs AB 2047, the department must begin checking for ASTM standards at least quarterly no later than July 1, 2027.

The practical effect would remain uncertain for years. ASTM must first develop qualifying standards, California officials must determine that the technology is feasible, the Justice Department must write its rules, and manufacturers would then receive another year before the restriction becomes operative.

The Legislature has therefore approved the framework for a future sales ban — not an immediate prohibition on ordinary 3D printers.

Gun rights advocates say Patrick “Tate” Adamiak was imprisoned over inert collectibles, but prosecutors and a federal appeals court said the case also involved an illegal machine gun and multiple unregistered destructive devices.

President Donald Trump has pardoned Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, an active-duty Navy sailor sentenced to 20 years in federal prison following a bitterly disputed prosecution involving machine guns, grenade launchers, and inert anti-tank weapons.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced the pardon Friday, declaring that the administration had corrected a grave injustice involving weapons that Adamiak’s supporters describe as nonfunctional collectibles or “toy firearms.”

Adamiak, then a Navy master-at-arms, was convicted in October 2022 of receiving and possessing an unregistered firearm, possessing and transferring a machine gun, and three counts of receiving and possessing unregistered destructive devices.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen sentenced him to 20 years in prison in June 2023.

The case became a cause célèbre among gun rights advocates, who accused the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of transforming inert military surplus items into working weapons for testing and then using those results to help secure a conviction.

Federal prosecutors presented a sharply different account. They said Adamiak had been selling illegal machine guns online and possessed multiple unregistered weapons classified as destructive devices under federal law.

Advocates Called Weapons ‘Merely Toys’

The Second Amendment Foundation said Adamiak was prosecuted for owning two inert RPG-7 variant anti-tank launchers that had holes drilled into their receivers and lacked essential internal components.

According to the organization, an ATF expert added components from functional RPGs until one of the launchers fired a single 7.62x39mm subcaliber training round.

Adamiak’s supporters argued that the government’s test did not prove the items were functional when he acquired or possessed them. They said similar demilitarized launchers remain commercially available without a federal firearms license or National Firearms Act registration.

“In no way, shape or form did Tate deserve to be arrested, much less convicted for owning what are considered merely toy firearms,” said Lee Williams, editor of the foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.

“We are extremely thankful the administration saw an opportunity to right a wrong and are grateful Tate is now headed home to be with his family,” Williams added.

The organization said Williams published more than 60 articles questioning the evidence, expert testimony, and conduct of federal agents involved in the case.

Case Involved More Than Inert RPGs

The “toy firearms” description reflects the position of Adamiak’s advocates, but the federal case was broader than the two antitank launchers.

According to the Justice Department’s account of the prosecution, the ATF purchased eight illegal machine guns from Adamiak through a confidential source between October 2021 and April 2022.

Agents subsequently searched his Virginia Beach residence and reported recovering 25 additional unregistered firearms, two grenade launchers, and two anti-tank launchers.

Prosecutors said Adamiak operated a business called Black Dog Arsenal and had participated in unregulated firearm sales and transfers since at least 2016.

The weapons underlying the five counts sustained at trial included a PPSh machine gun, an M79 40mm grenade launcher, an M203 40mm grenade launcher, and two RPG-7 variant recoilless antitank projectors.

A jury convicted Adamiak after a four-day trial. The government maintained that the evidence established he knew the relevant items had characteristics that brought them under federal machine gun and destructive device laws.

The pardon eliminates the legal consequences of Adamiak’s federal convictions but does not amount to a judicial ruling that the jury reached the wrong verdict.

Appeals Court Found Double Jeopardy Violation

Adamiak challenged his convictions and sentence before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

He argued that the indictment was inadequate, the evidence was insufficient, the jury instructions were improper, the statutes were unconstitutionally vague, and his convictions violated the Second Amendment.

The appeals court rejected nearly all those claims in an October 2025 opinion, finding that the government had introduced enough evidence for a rational jury to convict him.

The three-judge panel did, however, agree that two convictions based on the same PPSh machine gun violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy.

Adamiak had been convicted both of possessing or receiving an unregistered firearm and possessing or transferring a machine gun based on the same conduct. The government conceded that imposing separate punishments for both counts was impermissible.

The court ordered the trial judge to vacate one of those convictions and resentence him. It otherwise affirmed the case, including the remaining convictions involving the grenade launchers and RPG variants.

Trump’s pardon overtakes that continuing resentencing process and clears Adamiak’s federal convictions.

Sailor Had Been Selected for SEAL Training

Adamiak was serving as a Navy E-6 at the time of his arrest. The Second Amendment Foundation said he had also been accepted for Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, commonly known as BUD/S.

“Tate Adamiak endured every gun owner’s worst nightmare for more than four years,” foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said.

“While Tate shouldn’t have endured what happened to him in the first place, we are thrilled he has finally received the pardon he deserves,” Kraut added.

The pardon brings Adamiak’s imprisonment to an end, but the case is likely to remain part of the broader political fight over the ATF’s methods and the federal government’s classification of weapons parts, deactivated military equipment, and firearms that can allegedly be restored to working condition.

For Adamiak and his family, the immediate consequence is simpler: After years in federal custody and a sentence that could have kept him imprisoned into his 50s, he is finally coming home.