Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAVID PADUA; MICHAEL GLENN; :

BRIAN WEBER; ASSOCIATION OF NEW :
JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC.; :
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; :
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; :
NEW JERSEY FIREARM OWNERS SYNDICATE; : No. 25-13527
AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION; and :
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF :
AMERICA; :
:
Plaintiffs, : COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
: AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v. :
:
MATTHEW PLATKIN, in his official capacity as :
Attorney General of New Jersey; and PATRICK :
CALLAHAN, in his official capacity as :
Superintendent of the New Jersey Police; :
:
Defendants. :
:
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 2

LOCAL CIVIL RULE 10.1 STATEMENT

The mailing addresses of the parties to this action are:

Plaintiffs

David Padua
1981 McKee Avenue
Deptford, NJ 08096

Michael Glenn
347 Independence Drive
Forked River, NJ 08731

Brian Weber
23 Lake Drive
Lambertville, NJ 08530

Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.

5 Sicomac Road, Suite 292
North Haledon, NJ 07508

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 N.E. 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Safari Club International

501 2nd Street NE
Washington, DC 20002

New Jersey Firearm Owners Syndicate

21 West Lincoln Ave
2nd Floor, #1
Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716

American Suppressor Association

6085 Lake Forrest Drive
Suite 200A
Atlanta, GA 30328

National Rifle Association of America

11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

1
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 3 of 26 PageID: 3

Defendants

Matthew Platkin
Office of the Attorney General
25 Market Street
PO Box 081
Trenton, NJ 08625

Patrick Callahan
Office of the Superintendent
New Jersey State Police
PO Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 08628

2
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 4 of 26 PageID: 4

Plaintiffs David Padua, Michael Glenn, Brian Weber, Association of New Jersey Rifle &

Pistol Clubs, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Safari Club International, New Jersey Firearm

Owners Syndicate, American Suppressor Association, and National Rifle Association of America,

bring this Complaint against Defendants, Matthew Platkin, in his official capacity as Attorney

General of the State of New Jersey, and Patrick Callahan, in his official capacity as Superintendent

of the New Jersey State Police, who are officials responsible for enforcing a state statute infringing

the right of peaceable citizens to keep and bear firearm suppressors for lawful purposes.

Plaintiffs further allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of

the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. CONST. amend. II. Under this constitutional provision, the

peaceable citizens of this Nation have a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and

bear common arms for defense of self and family and for all other lawful pursuits.

2. Despite this constitutional guarantee, the State has enacted, and Defendants

enforce, a prohibition on the possession of firearm suppressors in New Jersey.

3. A suppressor is a safe, effective, and commonly used device that decreases the noise

level of a gunshot. Suppressors improve a firearm’s functionality and are integral to the safest and

most effective use of a firearm. They decrease the risk of permanent hearing damage, help protect

the hearing of hunters and those nearby, reduce noise pollution from firearm discharge, increase

the accuracy of firearm use by reducing recoil and shot flinch, make firearms training safer and

more effective, and improve the effectiveness and safety of firearms in the use of self-defense and

defense of the home. Contrary to representations in movies and television, meanwhile, suppressors

do not make a gunshot silent, and they are rarely used by criminals.

3
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 5 of 26 PageID: 5

4. Federal government authorities and medical organizations have endorsed

suppressors and deemed them one of the most effective tools to help prevent hearing loss from

firearm use.

5. Indeed, the Federal Government has now conceded that suppressors are entitled to

Second Amendment protection. See U.S. Br. at 4, Peterson, No. 24-30043 (5th Cir. May 23, 2025),

Doc. 129-2 (“U.S. Br.”). “As a result,” the Federal Government has insisted, “a ban on the

possession of suppressors”—like the State’s ban here—“would be unconstitutional.” Id. That view

is correct and commanded by any fair application of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment

jurisprudence.

6. Because of their various safety-enhancing and effectiveness benefits, suppressors

are widely used by peaceable citizens in the United States, including for target shooting and

hunting. They are legal to possess in 42 States, may be lawfully registered and possessed under

federal law, and are possessed by Americans in the millions.

7. The State’s enactment, and Defendants’ active enforcement, of the criminal

prohibition on suppressors denies peaceable individuals who reside in New Jersey, including the

members of the organizational plaintiffs, such as the individual plaintiffs, their fundamental,

individual right to keep and bear common arms.

8. In New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court stated the

test for Second Amendment violations: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an

individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must

then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition

of firearm regulation.” 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022).

4
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 6 of 26 PageID: 6

9. The plain text of the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments

that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Id. at 28 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008)). The Supreme Court

has defined “arms” under the Second Amendment broadly with a “general definition” that includes

all “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.” Id.

10. New Jersey’s ban on suppressors implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text.

By banning suppressors, New Jersey effectively bans suppressed firearms, and suppressed firearms

are “arms.” Alternatively, suppressors facilitate armed self-defense by enhancing the effectiveness

of firearms for self-defense and mitigating the hearing risks associated with using firearms. Given

their integral use with firearms, it is unsurprising that federal statutes treat them as such. See 26

U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7); 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C).

11. Therefore, by prohibiting Plaintiffs from possessing and carrying suppressors,

Defendants have prevented Plaintiffs from “keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of

the Amendment’s text. U.S. CONST. amend. II. As a result, “[t]o justify its regulation, the

government . . . must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical

tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17.

12. Defendants cannot meet their burden. Heller and Bruen have provided the sole

historical tradition that can remove an arm from the Second Amendment’s protective scope—the

tradition of banning dangerous and unusual weapons. Heller, 554 U.S. at 627; Bruen, 597 U.S. at

47. To be banned, a firearm must be both “dangerous and unusual.” Caetano v. Massachusetts,

577 U.S. 411, 417 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). Suppressors are neither

dangerous nor unusual. Arms that are in common use, like those equipped with the suppressors

New Jersey has banned, cannot be unusual. And suppressors, which increase the safety of a firearm

5
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 7 of 26 PageID: 7

and facilitate the safest use of a firearm, cannot be dangerous.

13. Suppressors do not meet the Supreme Court’s threshold for banning arms, and the

New Jersey ban challenged herein must be held unconstitutional.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims for relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

15. Plaintiffs seek remedies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, and 2202, and 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983 and 1988.

16. Venue lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2).

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

17. Plaintiff David Padua is a natural person, a resident of Gloucester County, New

Jersey, an adult over the age of 21, a citizen of the United States, and legally eligible under federal

and state law to possess and acquire firearms.

18. Plaintiff Michael Glenn is a natural person, a resident of Ocean County, New

Jersey, an adult over the age of 21, a citizen of the United States, and legally eligible under federal

and state law to possess and acquire firearms.

19. Plaintiff Brian Weber is a natural person, a resident of Hunterdon County, New

Jersey, an adult over the age of 21, a citizen of the United States, and legally eligible under federal

and state law to possess and acquire firearms.

20. Plaintiff Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. (“ANJRPC”) is a not

for profit membership corporation, incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1936, which

represents its members. ANJRPC represents the interests of target shooters, hunters, competitors,

6
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 8 of 26 PageID: 8

outdoors people, and other law-abiding firearms owners. Among the ANJRPC’s purposes is aiding

such persons in every way within its power and supporting and defending the people’s right to

keep and bear arms, including the right of its members and the public to purchase and possess

suppressors. ANJRPC brings this action on behalf of its members, including Individual Plaintiffs,

who are adversely and directly harmed by Defendants’ enforcement of the laws, regulations,

policies, practices, and customs challenged herein.

21. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) is a nonprofit educational

foundation incorporated in 1974. SAF’s mission is to preserve the individual constitutional right

to keep and bear arms through public education, judicial, historical, and economic research,

publishing, and legal action programs focused on the civil right guaranteed by the Second

Amendment to the United States Constitution. SAF brings this action on behalf of its members,

including Individual Plaintiffs, who are adversely and directly harmed by Defendants’

enforcement of the laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs challenged herein.

22. Plaintiff Safari Club International (“SCI”) is a leading association in defending the

freedom to hunt and promoting sustainable use wildlife conservation worldwide for over 50 years.

SCI has over 100,000 members and advocates and 152 Chapters around the world. SCI has almost

400 national members in New Jersey and chartered its first “Garden State” Chapter in 2024. SCI

brings this action on behalf of its members, including Individual Plaintiffs, who are adversely and

directly harmed by Defendants’ enforcement of the laws, regulations, policies, practices, and

customs challenged herein.

23. Plaintiff New Jersey Firearm Owners Syndicate (“NJFOS”) is a New Jersey non-

profit corporation with over 3,000 members supporting the Second Amendment rights of New

Jersey residents for over a decade. NJFOS brings this action on behalf of its members, including

7
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 9 of 26 PageID: 9

Individual Plaintiffs, who are adversely and directly harmed by Defendants’ enforcement of the

laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs challenged herein.

24. Plaintiff American Suppressor Association (“ASA”) was formed in 2011 with the

purpose of securing pro-suppressor reform nationwide. ASA has lobbied in 35 U.S. states and

territories, fought to ease the archaic restrictions on suppressors in D.C., testified in front of dozens

of legislative bodies, hosted countless suppressor demonstrations for legislators, policymakers,

media, and the public, and funded research proving the efficacy of suppressors. ASA brings this

action on behalf of its members, including Individual Plaintiffs, who are adversely and directly

harmed by Defendants’ enforcement of the laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs

challenged herein.

25. Plaintiff National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) is a nonprofit corporation

founded in 1871. NRA is America’s oldest civil rights organization and America’s leading

provider of firearms marksmanship and safety training for both civilians and law enforcement.

NRA has millions of members across the nation, including in New Jersey. NRA brings this action

on behalf of its members, including Individual Plaintiffs, who are adversely and directly harmed

by Defendants’ enforcement of the laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs challenged

herein.

26. Mr. Padua is a member of ANJRPC, SAF, SCI, NJFOS, ASA, and NRA.

27. Mr. Glenn is a member of ANJRPC, SAF, SCI, NJFOS, ASA, and NRA.

28. Mr. Weber is a member of ANJRPC, SAF, SCI, NJFOS, ASA, and NRA.

Defendants

29. Defendant Matthew Platkin is sued in his official capacity as the Attorney General

of New Jersey. As Attorney General, Defendant Platkin is the chief law enforcement officer of the

8
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 10 of 26 PageID: 10

State and exercises supervisory authority over all county prosecutors in the State. See N.J.S.A.

§ 52:17B-103. This authority includes the authority to enforce the State’s general prohibition on

the possession of suppressors.

30. Defendant Colonel Patrick Callahan is sued in his official capacity as

Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Callahan is responsible for managing and

controlling enforcement of the State’s criminal laws by the New Jersey Police, including the

State’s general prohibition on the possession of suppressors.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. NEW JERSEY’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSOR BAN.

31. New Jersey bans suppressors, listing “silencers” under a list of “Prohibited

Weapons and Devices” defined as “Firearms, Other Dangerous Weapons and Instruments of

Crime.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c) (“the Suppressor Ban”).

32. New Jersey defines a “silencer” as “any instrument, attachment, weapon or

appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended

to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.” N.J.S.A. §

2C:39-1(g).

33. While suppressors are sometimes referred to as “silencers,” suppressors do not

silence firearms. “Despite common myths and misconceptions, suppressors do not silent host

firearms,” instead they “decreas[e] the overall sound signature.” The American Suppressor

Association (ASA), YOUTUBE (Nov. 26, 2014), http://bit.ly/3KlM4yj (demonstrating the use of

suppressors and their decibel level reduction). The sound from a suppressed firearm “may be

muffled or diminished,” but “it can still be heard.” Stephen P. Halbrook, Firearm Sound

Moderators: Issues of Criminalization and the Second Amendment, 46 CUMB. L. REV. 33, 36

9
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 11 of 26 PageID: 11

(2016) (“Halbrook”); see also United States v. Bolatete, 977 F.3d 1022, 1028 (11th Cir. 2020)

(referring to “suppressors or silencers” as “the same thing”). Indeed, suppressed firearms are still

quite loud.

34. The Suppressor Ban imposes criminal penalties, declaring that “[a]ny person who

knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.”

N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c).

35. New Jersey law provides a narrow exception for certain uses of suppressors in

hunting. Specifically, the Suppressor Ban does not apply to “any person who is specifically

identified in a special deer management permit issued by the Division of Fish and Wildlife to

utilize a firearm silencer as part of an alternative deer control method implemented in accordance

with a special deer management permit . . . while the person is in the actual performance of the

permitted alternative deer control method and while going to and from the place where the

permitted alternative deer control method is being utilized.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(g)(5). The

exception does “not, however, otherwise apply to any person to authorize the purchase or

possession of a firearm silencer.” Id.

36. Federal law defines suppressors as firearms subject to the Second Amendment.

Suppressors are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), which defines suppressors as

a “firearm.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7). The Gun Control Act also defines a silencer as a “firearm.”

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C).

37. The Supreme Court likewise defines “arms” under the Second Amendment broadly

with a “general definition” that includes “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.”

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28.

10
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 12 of 26 PageID: 12

A. New Jersey Has Criminalized Suppressors Despite Their Common Use.

38. Suppressors have been broadly permitted and commonly used for over one hundred

years.

39. In 1908, Hiram Percy Maxim applied to patent a device that could be attached to a

firearm to reduce gunshot noise. He dubbed his invention a “silencer.” Silent Firearm, U.S. Patent

No. 958,935 (filed Nov. 30, 1908) (issued May 24, 2010), https://perma.cc/5JMV-WWS4. Several

years later, Maxim explained that he invented the device to reduce sound disturbance caused by

firearms. Halbrook at 41.

40. President Theodore Roosevelt possessed a suppressor, the Maxim Silencer. Max

Slowik, Teddy Roosevelt’s Suppressed 1894 Winchester, GUNS.COM (May 18, 2012),

https://perma.cc/7K47-4LZE.

41. The common use of suppressors has continued into the modern day. Millions of

suppressors are owned by peaceable Americans.

42. As of 2021, Americans had registered 2.6 million of suppressors with the federal

regulator of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”). See

Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2021 at 16, BUREAU OF

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES (2021), https://perma.cc/9FXV-62FU.

43. Lawful suppressor ownership has continued to rise. By the end of 2024, ATF

reported a total of 4.5 million registered suppressors. See Suppressor Owner Study at 7, NSSF

(2025), https://perma.cc/BRS8-4ZK6.

44. Suppressors are widely permitted throughout the United States. Contrary to the

New Jersey Suppressor Ban, 42 States permit their citizens to possess and use suppressors.

45. Federal law likewise permits the possession of suppressors, subject to regulation.

To lawfully own a suppressor under federal law, individuals must register the suppressor, obtain
11
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 13 of 26 PageID: 13

permission, submit fingerprints, and pay a $200 tax. See generally 26 U.S.C. §§ 5811–12, 5845.

Congress recently reduced the tax on the making and transfer of suppressors to $0 effective January

1, 2026, but it did not repeal the registration provisions. See One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the

“BBB”) § 70436, Pub. L. No. 119-21 (2025).

46. Suppressors are also widely permitted around the world. See Halbrook at 76–78

(cataloging the many countries that permit suppressors). Indeed, several European countries allow

for the possession, use, and transfer of suppressors far more liberally than New Jersey does. See

generally id. To provide just a few examples, in Germany, suppressors “are allowed for hunting

and may be required for professional hunters and certain others for hearing protection and noise

pollution.” Id. at 77 (emphasis added). In Norway, “[s]uppressors may be freely transferred and

possessed if the person has a gun license,” and a “wide selection may be ordered online.” Id. In

the United Kingdom, suppressors are “widely advertised” and may be acquired for “good reason,”

including “work, sport, or leisure.” Id. at 78.

B. New Jersey Has Criminalized Suppressors Despite Their Many Lawful, Safe,
And Common Uses.

47. Suppressors have many common, legal uses. Firearm suppressors are commonly

possessed and very infrequently used for criminal activity. Although not required under the Second

Amendment, suppressors increase the safety of firearm use.

48. First, suppressors are commonly used for hearing protection. Suppressors are one

of the best and most effective forms of hearing protection for firearms use. The American Academy

of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (“AAO-HNS”), “one of the world’s largest

organizations representing specialists who treat the ears,” About Us, AM. ACAD.

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, https://perma.cc/T364-YTFL, recently issued a

position statement “endors[ing] the use of firearm suppressors as an effective method of reducing

12
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 14 of 26 PageID: 14

the risk of hearing loss, especially when used in conjunction with conventional hearing protective

measures.” Suppressors for Hearing Preservation, AM. ACAD. OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK

SURGERY (Nov. 18, 2024), https://perma.cc/A9EA-Z95P. This position statement explained that

the “benefit” of using a suppressor “is additive when used with ear-level hearing protection devices

such as circumaural muffs or ear plugs.” Id. (emphasis added). The endorsement of suppressors

by one of the largest groups of specialists in hearing damage further supports the Plaintiffs’

argument that suppressors promote the safe use of firearms and are in fact critical in preventing

hearing damage.

49. The National Hearing Conservation Association (“NHCA”) Task Force on

Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise recommends the use of

suppressors to reduce the risk of hearing loss. Michael Stewart et al., NHCA Position Statement:

Recreational Firearm Noise at 1, NAT’L HEARING CONSERVATION ASS’N (Mar. 16, 2017),

https://perma.cc/Q5SK-CLL.

50. The CDC has recommended the use of suppressors for hearing protection. Indeed,

according to the CDC “[t]he only potentially effective noise control method to reduce . . . noise

exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of

the gun barrel.” Lilia Chen & Scott E. Brueck, NAT’L INST. FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY &

HEALTH, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, NOISE AND LEAD EXPOSURES AT AN

OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE – CALIFORNIA 5 (2011), https://perma.cc/34CH-T5PY (emphasis added).

The CDC accordingly has recommended that, “if feasible and legally permissible,” firearm

training facilities should “attach noise suppressors to firearms to reduce peak sound pressure

levels.” Scott E. Brueck et al., NAT’L INST. FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH, CENTERS FOR

DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, MEASUREMENT OF EXPOSURE TO IMPULSIVE NOISE AT

13
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 15 of 26 PageID: 15

INDOOR & OUTDOOR FIRING RANGES DURING TACTICAL TRAINING EXERCISES 14 (2014),

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/172442.

51. This widespread support makes sense. Without the use of suppressors, “[t]he level

of impulse noise generated by almost all firearms exceeds the 140 dB peak [sound pressure level]

limit recommended by [OHSA] and [NIOSH].” Michael Stewart et al., Risks Faced by

Recreational Firearm Users, AUDIOLOGY TODAY, Mar.–Apr. 2011, at 38, 40. Consequently, “it is

not surprising that recreational firearm noise exposure is one of the leading causes of [noise

induced hearing loss] in America today.” Id. With a suppressor, however, the sound of a firearm

can fall within safer levels. For example, the sound of a Smith & Wesson 9mm pistol with a

suppressor can be as low as 127–130 decibels, as opposed to 157–160 decibels without a

suppressor. David Kopel, The Hearing Protection Act and ‘Silencers’, WASH. POST (June 19,

2017), https://perma.cc/45ZW-JW6S. An AR-15 rifle with a suppressor, meanwhile, makes a noise

around 132 decibels. Glenn Kessler, Are Firearms with a Silencer ‘Quiet’?, WASH. POST (Mar.

20, 2017), https://perma.cc/ADY2-JXC5.

52. Indeed, suppressors can be more effective for hearing protection than traditional

forms of hearing protection like ear plugs or earmuffs. One meta-analysis found that “th[e] review

of 20 published studies demonstrated far worse performance than the corrected NRR[(Noise

Reduction Ratio) of earmuffs and earplugs] suggests: the laboratory NRRs [Noise Reduction

Ratios] consistently overestimated the real-world NRRs by 140% to 2000%.” Matthew P. Branch,

Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-Level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use, 144(6)

OTOLARYNGOLOGY—HEAD NECK SURGERY 950, 951 (2011), https://perma.cc/A7R7-Z6W3. That

same study found that “[a]ll suppressors offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level

protection, usually greater than 50% better,” with personal protective equipment such as earmuffs

14
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 16 of 26 PageID: 16

and earplugs producing an average reduction of 5-10 decibels compared to 30 decibel reduction

by the four suppressors tested. Id. at 950.

53. Second, suppressors are commonly used to protect the hearing of hunters and those

around them. Despite the potential hearing risks, up to 95% of adult hunters report not wearing

hearing protection while hunting. Deanna K. Meinke et al., Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing

Loss from Recreational Firearms, 38 SEMINARS IN HEARING 267, 275 (Oct. 10, 2017),

https://perma.cc/2RHK-VL5J. Many sportsmen and women omit traditional ear protection

because it impairs their ability to hear approaching game. Hearing protection can also hinder their

ability to effectively communicate with fellow hunters and companions, causing a potential safety

hazard. Suppressors make hunting safer and more effective for hunters and their companions by

reducing the noise from gunshots to safer levels. The Suppressor Ban itself recognizes this fact by

providing a narrow exception for the use of suppressors in certain regulated forms of hunting.

N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(g)(5).

54. Third, suppressors are commonly used as a public courtesy to prevent noise

pollution from lawful target shooting in neighborhoods and communities. Although suppressors

do not silence gunshots, they reduce the decibel level of gunshots. In fact, this was the reason

suppressors were invented. Halbrook at 41. For example, Teddy Roosevelt used his suppressor to

maintain good relationships with his neighbors while shooting on his property. See Slowik at 1.

55. Fourth, suppressors are commonly used to make firearm training safer and to

improve the accuracy of firearms. Suppressors reduce recoil, allowing for greater control of a

firearm and improved accuracy. Do Suppressors Reduce Recoil?, SILENCER SHOP (Apr. 2, 2024),

https://perma.cc/K864-N7RF. Some firearms safety instructors prefer their students to use

suppressors because it prevents them from developing a flinch at the firing of a gun. Kopel, supra.

15
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 17 of 26 PageID: 17

56. Fifth, suppressors are commonly used to make self-defense and defense of the home

safer and more effective. Suppressors also offer crucial protection for individuals engaged in self-

defense because, in addition to dampening sound, suppressors reduce recoil and shot flinch,

allowing greater control of a firearm and improved accuracy. Do Suppressors Reduce Recoil?,

supra. In the event that an individual must use a firearm for self-defense, the individual may not

have ear muffs or ear plugs at his or her disposal. Accordingly, a suppressed firearm allows the

individual to exercise self-defense or defense of the home while minimizing the risk of permanent

hearing loss. Further, the individual retains the ability to effectively communicate with other

household members and hear outside noise or signals, which may aid in coordinating self-defense

activities or contacting law enforcement. Moreover, avoiding immediate disorientation and

momentary deafness is crucial to the effective use of a firearm and highly beneficial in a self-

defense situation. An unsuppressed Glock 17’s 162-decibel sound, see Relative Sound Pressure

Levels in Decibels (dB) of Firearms, NAT’L GUN TRS., (July 21, 2017), https://perma.cc/T6KB-

9GWU, is comparable to the 170-decibel sound produced by a “flashbang” grenade used to disable

someone with light and sound. How Do Flashbangs Work?, CHARLOTTE EYE EAR NOSE &

THROAT ASSOCS., P.A. (Mar. 11, 2020), https://perma.cc/3EMX-JBYT. Noises at that volume can

cause temporary deafness and disorientation to the point of loss of balance (because the fluid of

the inner ear is disrupted). Id. A suppressed firearm permits a defending individual to avoid this

harm and effectively communicate and coordinate self-defense activities while contacting the

authorities.

57. By contrast, suppressors are very rarely used for criminal purposes. “Overall

numbers certainly suggest that silencers are a very minor law enforcement problem.” See Paul A.

Clark, Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers, 8 W. CRIM. REV. 44, 51 (2007), https://perma.cc/DQ6Q-

16
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 18 of 26 PageID: 18

ZW8Y. One study estimated the number of suppressor-related prosecutions—including

prosecutions for the unregistered possession of a suppressor with no other crime committed—to

be just 30 to 40 cases per year out of a total of 75,000 to 80,000 federal criminal prosecutions. Id.

58. In 2017, acting ATF Deputy Director Ronald B. Turk confirmed that suppressors

“are very rarely used in criminal shootings.” Ronald Turk, White Paper: Options to Reduce or

Modify Firearms Regulations, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES at 6–7

(2017), https://perma.cc/AP6R-VZFA.

59. In an ATF White Paper, the Deputy Director explained:

In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States.
Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and
hunting industry are now well recognized. At present, 42 states generally allow silencers
to be used for sporting purposes….

While DOJ [the Department of Justice] and ATF have historically not supported removal
of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that
the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing
them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of
silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10
years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related
violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions.
Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very
rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers,
it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety
necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the
[Gun Control Act of 1968].
Id.

60. And in its recent brief in Peterson, the United States argued that the “beneficial

use” of suppressors “is overwhelming in relation to their criminal use.” U.S. Br. at 7 (emphasis

added).

61. This makes sense, as suppressors are not of much use to criminals. After all,

suppressed gunshots are by no means “silent.” For example, the 127 decibels generated by a

suppressed 9mm pistol are comparable to a firecracker or an ambulance siren. Brian J. Fligor,

17
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 19 of 26 PageID: 19

Prevention of Hearing Loss from Noise Exposure at 8, BETTER HEARING INST. (2011),

https://perma.cc/HLY7-DAWB. Accordingly, criminals who shoot suppressed weapons can still

be easily heard. Suppressors can reduce or prevent hearing damage but do not silence criminal

activity.

***

62. The Suppressor Ban is, thus, a ban on keeping and bearing arms that are

commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes, including hearing protection, hunting, public

courtesy, firearm accuracy and training, and self-defense in the home.

63. Defendants will not be able to show that history and tradition support an outright

ban on the possession of common suppressors by peaceable citizens. In fact, the opposite is true.

Suppressors have been lawfully used for purposes like reducing noise pollution in neighborhoods

since the early 20th century. See Halbrook at 45–46. Suppressors were not regulated at the federal

level until Congress enacted the NFA in 1934. Then, the Federal Government subjected them to a

tax, background check, and registration scheme. Regardless of the constitutionality of that system,

it does not support a complete ban on suppressors. Similarly, on the State level, historical practice

supports the lawful possession of suppressors. New Jersey’s outright ban on peaceable citizens

possessing common suppressors is an outlier that finds no justification in history or tradition.

II. THE EFFECTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS.

64. David Padua is a peaceable, responsible, adult resident of Gloucester County, New

Jersey. Mr. Padua lives in Deptford, New Jersey.

65. Mr. Padua spent 18 years in the United States Marine Corp until he was honorably

discharged and medically retired in 2000. He left the military as a staff sergeant, where he was a

machine gunner in an infantry unit and a machine gun instructor. At the time he left the military,

Mr. Padua was rated 10% disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). By 2006,
18
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 20 of 26 PageID: 20

his disability rating was increased by the VA to 60% disabled and he was rated 20% disabled due

to tinnitus alone. This is the highest rating the VA will give for hearing loss. By 2018, the VA

increased Mr. Padua’s status again to 100% disabled due to a collection of deteriorating service-

related physical injuries. In 2023, Mr. Padua was diagnosed with Meniere’s Disease, which affects

the inner ear and causes vertigo. The VA concluded this added condition was likely service-related.

66. Mr. Padua is an NRA-certified instructor and teaches a variety of firearms-

related classes in New Jersey. However, further deterioration of his service-related hearing injuries

threatens his remaining livelihood.

67. Mr. Padua owns a collection of firearms, has completed numerous state background

checks, and holds all relevant state-required firearms permits and licenses, which remain in good

standing. Mr. Padua is also an instructor for the New Jersey Permit to Carry course and

qualification.

68. The Suppressor Ban prevents Mr. Padua from owning or using suppressors in New

Jersey.

69. But for the Suppressor Ban, Mr. Padua would possess and use suppressors in New

Jersey, especially given his hearing condition and desire to continue his livelihood as a firearm

safety instructor.

70. Mr. Padua would use suppressors to increase safety and effectiveness in firearm

use and training and to protect against hearing damage, among other beneficial and lawful

purposes.

71. Michael Glenn is a peaceable, responsible, adult resident of Ocean County, New

Jersey. Mr. Glenn lives in Forked River, New Jersey with his wife and children.

72. Mr. Glenn joined the National Guard in 1987 where he served as a combat medic.

19
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 21 of 26 PageID: 21

He was honorably discharged in 2012 after a deployment from 2004 to 2005. Mr. Glenn joined the

Fire Department of New York (“FDNY”) as a paramedic in 1995 where he served until 2020.

During his tenure in the FDNY, Mr. Glenn also served on the FDNY Personal Security Detail for

high-profile visitors to New York City, including presidents and vice presidents of the United

States, Secretaries of State, and foreign dignitaries.

73. Due to his long tenure in both the United States Military and the FDNY, Mr. Glenn

is concerned about work-related hearing damage.

74. Mr. Glenn has completed numerous background checks for firearms-related

transactions and has all state-required firearms permits and licenses.

75. The Suppressor Ban prevents Mr. Glenn from possessing and using suppressors in

New Jersey.

76. But for the Suppressor Ban, Mr. Glenn would possess and use suppressors in New

Jersey, especially given his concerns about hearing damage.

77. Brian Weber is a peaceable, responsible, adult resident of Hunterdon County, New

Jersey. He lives in Lambertville, New Jersey with his wife and children.

78. Mr. Weber works as a utility employee for the New Jersey American Water

Company and is a Commercial Driver’s License holder.

79. Mr. Weber owns a collection of firearms and enjoys shooting for sport, hunting,

and self-defense. He owns a large parcel of land where he has built a private range. While he has

adequate space between his land and his neighbors, Mr. Weber is concerned that the noise from

the lawful shooting activities on his property will disturb his neighbors.

80. Mr. Weber has small children and, like many people living in more rural parts of

the Garden State, is concerned about his safety both in terms of crime and dangerous wildlife,

20
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 22 of 26 PageID: 22

including bears and coyotes. He is also concerned about the increased sensitivity of his children to

hearing loss from exposure to the sound of a firearm should the need for self-defense arise.

81. Mr. Weber would also like to soon begin teaching his children firearms safety but

is concerned about potential hearing damage for children even with conventional hearing

protection.

82. Mr. Weber is a licensed hunter in the state of New Jersey and would like to hunt on

his land and in the surrounding permissible areas and would like to be able to manage the varmint

population on his property.

83. Mr. Weber owns an integrally suppressed bolt-action rifle chambered in rimfire .22

ammunition. ATF approved his application for the suppressed rifle on June 6, 2025, and he

currently keeps the suppressed rifle in a Pennsylvania trust. Mr. Weber would like to use the

firearm for all of the above lawful and beneficial purposes.

84. The suppressed rifle is held in an existing NFA Revocable Trust, domiciled in

Pennsylvania, with Mr. Weber as one of three Responsible Persons. Mr. Weber has previously

been approved by the federal government to possess NFA items, and the ATF again approved his

possession of the suppressed bolt-action rifle after engaging in the NFA process. Mr. Weber is

legally permitted to own and use it in Pennsylvania. Mr. Weber would like to bring that suppressed

firearm back to his home and land in New Jersey.

85. The Suppressor Ban prevents Mr. Weber from possessing and using suppressors in

New Jersey, including the suppressed firearm he has already purchased.

86. But for the Suppressor Ban, Mr. Weber would possess and use suppressors in New

Jersey, especially given his concerns about self-defense, safe hunting, courtesy to neighbors, and

protecting his children from hearing damage.

21
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 23 of 26 PageID: 23

COUNT ONE

42 U.S.C. § 1983—Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ and their Members’ Rights under the Second
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

88. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “A well-

regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and

bear Arms shall not be infringed.” U.S. CONST. amend. II.

89. The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth

Amendment. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750, 805–06 (2010) (Thomas, J.,

concurring).

90. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the

Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima

facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the

time of the founding.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582 (citations omitted); see also Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28

(“[E]ven though the Second Amendment’s definition of ‘arms’ is fixed according to its historical

understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-

defense.”).

91. The Supreme Court has stated the test for addressing Second Amendment

challenges: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the

Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation

by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. The Supreme Court has explained that the Second Amendment prohibits

states from outrightly banning arms in common use. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (finding no

22
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 24 of 26 PageID: 24

historical tradition for a government “broadly prohibit[ing] the public carry of commonly used

firearms for personal defense”).

92. New Jersey’s Suppressor Ban bars the use of bearable arms in common use for

lawful purposes that peaceable people possess by the millions. Suppressors are, therefore, neither

dangerous nor unusual and cannot be banned.

93. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against state actors who deprive

individuals of federal constitutional rights under color of state law. The Second Amendment also

may be enforced against Defendants under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

94. Individual Plaintiffs are peaceable citizens of New Jersey and the United States

who wish to possess suppressors banned by New Jersey.

95. Organizational Plaintiffs sue on behalf of their members, peaceable citizens of New

Jersey and the United States who wish to possess suppressors banned by New Jersey.

96. Defendants enforce the Suppressor Ban under color of state law. See N.J.S.A. §

2C:39-3(c).

97. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ and their members’ right to keep and bear arms

by precluding them from being able to purchase or possess suppressors because Defendants

enforce N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c) and the statutes, regulations, customs, policies, and practices related

thereto.

98. Defendants’ enforcement of N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c) and the statutes, regulations,

customs, policies, and practices related thereto, is an infringement and an impermissible burden

on Plaintiffs’ and their members’ right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the Second and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

23
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 25 of 26 PageID: 25

99. Defendants’ enforcement of N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c) and the statutes, regulations,

customs, policies, and practices related thereto forces Plaintiffs and their members either to comply

with the unconstitutional mandate—thereby being prevented from exercising their rights under the

Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution—or be subjected to

criminal prosecution.

100. Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of the above infringement and

impermissible burden on Plaintiffs’ and their members’ Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights,

Plaintiffs and their members have suffered—and continue to suffer—from an unlawful and

irreparable deprivation of their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the following relief:

a. Declare that the ban on commonly possessed suppressors, N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-

3(c), and all related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violate the right to keep

and bear arms, as guaranteed under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, both facially and as-applied;

b. Enjoin each Defendant, and each Defendant’s respective employees,

officers, agents, and representatives, and all those acting in concert or participation, from

enforcing the New Jersey ban on suppressors, consisting of N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c) and all

statutes, regulations, customs, policies, and practices designed to enforce or implement the

same;

c. Award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

and any other applicable law; and,

24
 Case 1:25-cv-13527 Document 1 Filed 07/18/25 Page 26 of 26 PageID: 26

d. Grant any and all other and further legal and equitable relief against

Defendants as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment, or as the Court otherwise

deems just and proper.

Dated: July 18, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Daniel L. Schmutter
Daniel L. Schmutter
HARTMAN &WINNICKI, P.C.
74 Passaic Street
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
(201) 967-8040
(201) 967-0590 (fax)
[email protected]

David H. Thompson*
Peter A. Patterson*
Athanasia O. Livas*
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
[email protected]
*Pro hac vice applications forthcoming

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25