FPC asks federal court to strike down New Jersey’s handgun-rationing law after securing victory over California’s similar ban
TRENTON, N.J. (September 14, 2026) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in Struck v. Davenport, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to declare the State’s “one-gun-a-month” handgun purchase ban unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement. This move comes after FPC was successful in striking down California’s similar law—the first time the Ninth Circuit issued a final judgment striking down a law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
FPC’s motion argues that the case is straightforward under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. The constitutional text protects the right to “keep and bear Arms,” and courts across the country have recognized that the right necessarily protects the ability to acquire firearms. Because the plaintiffs seek to acquire handguns for lawful purposes, the motion argues that their conduct is presumptively protected and New Jersey bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The FPC motion also points to FPC’s landmark victory in Nguyen v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s substantially similar one-gun-a-month restriction. The Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment protects both possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms without meaningful constraints, concluding that the historical record did not establish even a “historical cousin” for California’s law. The Ninth Circuit entered final judgment against California’s one-gun-a-month law in 2025. The brief also points to other FPC victories, like Reese v. ATF, to show how the New Jersey law fails.
“The Second Amendment protects ‘Arms’—plural. The government has no constitutional authority to ration the People’s rights and politicians do not get to decide how many protected arms peaceable people may acquire in a month. We already defeated California’s similar ban, and now we are asking the court to eliminate New Jersey’s version of the same unconstitutional scheme,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
The New Jersey restriction is a distinctly modern invention. According to FPC’s motion, the first handgun-rationing law was not enacted until 1975, only five states have ever enacted similar one-gun-a-month restrictions, and only New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia currently retain such laws.
The State’s own experts underscore the historical problem. FPC’s brief explains that New Jersey’s experts acknowledge laws like the challenged handgun-rationing ban “did not exist early in the country’s history.” Instead, they rely on what the motion describes as a “hodgepodge” of regulations concerning subjects ranging from gunpowder storage and firearm taxation to licensing, Native American trade, and much later firearm regulations. FPC argues that those laws neither burdened the same conduct nor operated for the same reasons as New Jersey’s modern prohibition.
FPC’s motion further highlights the application of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, as well as FPC’s recent en banc win at the Third Circuit in Cheeseman v. Davenport, where the Court held New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic rifles unconstitutional. Under the law, New Jersey must identify historically relevant regulations that were representative, sufficiently widespread, and relevantly similar in both how and why they burdened the right. But the State cannot do so. The FPC motion argues that isolated, localized, or late-in-time regulations cannot establish the historical tradition necessary to justify the State’s ban.
“We said when we filed this case that California would not be the end of these gun-rationing laws, and we meant it. Since then, we secured a final appellate victory eliminating California’s one-gun-a-month ban. New Jersey is next—the State’s own experts cannot identify the representative historical tradition the Constitution requires because there isn’t one. We and our FPC Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward and eliminate these immoral restrictions everywhere they exist so the People can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose,” Combs concluded.
The plaintiffs include FPC, two FPC members, and the National Rifle Association. The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley P. Lehman of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston as well as Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group. The motion for summary judgment, statement of undisputed material facts, and other case documents in Struck can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/struck.
Individuals who want to join the FPC Grassroots Army and help support important lawsuits like this one can sign up in under 3 minutes at JoinFPC.org.
Media Contact: [email protected]
About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
Read the full article here
