The summary judgment motion seeks a final ruling against the state’s 30-day handgun purchase limit, but the restriction remains in effect while the case proceeds
CAMDEN, NJ — The Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association and two New Jersey residents have asked a federal judge to permanently block the state’s one-handgun-per-30-days law, arguing that the purchase restriction violates the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment Monday in the consolidated federal litigation known as Benton v. Davenport and Struck v. Davenport. A summary judgment motion asks a court to resolve a case without a trial when the filer contends there is no genuine dispute over the material facts.
The filing does not overturn the law. New Jersey’s handgun purchase limit remains in effect unless the court issues an order blocking its enforcement.
Lawsuit targets New Jersey’s 30-day limit
New Jersey generally prohibits a person from purchasing more than one handgun during any 30-day period. The restriction does not impose the same numerical limit on rifles or shotguns.
Lawmakers enacted the limit in 2009 as part of a broader effort to combat illegal gun trafficking and bulk handgun purchases. The official chapter law states that only one handgun may be purchased or delivered on each permit and no more than one may be purchased within 30 days.
The statute contains exceptions for law enforcement purchases, federally licensed collectors of curios and relics, transfers between licensed firearms dealers and certain transactions approved by the superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
Gun rights advocates frequently refer to the restriction as the “one-gun-a-month” or “1-in-30” law.
Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction
The Struck plaintiffs — Matthew Struck, Daniel Francisco, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the NRA — want U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams to declare the restriction unconstitutional and permanently bar the state from enforcing it.
Their summary judgment brief filed Sept. 14 argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire multiple firearms and contains no restriction dictating how frequently an eligible person may buy a handgun.
Struck and Francisco possess New Jersey firearms purchaser identification cards and are not prohibited from owning guns, according to the plaintiffs’ filings. Both men say they would purchase two or more handguns from licensed dealers during a 30-day period if the state did not prohibit them from doing so.
The plaintiffs contend that different handguns serve different lawful purposes, including home defense, licensed public carry, hunting, competition and collecting.
Cases were consolidated in federal court
The dispute began as two separate lawsuits challenging the same restriction.
Struck and Francisco filed one case with the Firearms Policy Coalition. Christian Benton brought the other challenge with the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation.
A federal judge consolidated the cases in June 2025 because they raised the same constitutional challenge and shared a common state defendant. The court later permitted the NRA to join the Struck plaintiffs.
The consolidated matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under case number 1:24-cv-07098.
Gun rights groups dispute state’s historical case
The plaintiffs’ central argument relies on the legal test established by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving the Second Amendment.
Under that framework, the government must show that a modern firearm restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation once the challenged conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s text.
The Struck plaintiffs contend that New Jersey cannot identify a sufficiently similar historical restriction. Their filing says laws limiting eligible residents to one handgun purchase during a specified period did not exist during the nation’s early history.
The state’s experts have examined historical regulations involving gunpowder storage, firearm taxes, dealer licensing, recordkeeping and weapons trading, according to the brief. The plaintiffs argue that those laws imposed different burdens and addressed different public safety concerns.
Those assertions remain legal arguments advanced by the plaintiffs. The court has not adopted their historical analysis or ruled that New Jersey’s law is unconstitutional.
New Jersey will get a chance to respond
The state is expected to defend the restriction as a public safety measure intended to reduce gun trafficking and the diversion of legally purchased handguns into illegal markets.
State attorneys may also dispute whether a temporary purchase limit burdens the right to keep and bear arms in the same way as a ban on possessing a class of weapons.
The litigation is proceeding against New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and state law enforcement officials in their official capacities. Davenport became the named defendant after succeeding former Attorney General Matthew Platkin.
New Jersey’s response will be critical because summary judgment can be granted only if the judge finds no genuine dispute over material facts and concludes that one side is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
Case follows major New Jersey gun ruling
The new filing arrives during an unusually active period for New Jersey gun laws.
In July, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey’s restrictions on certain semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. Shore News Network reported that the Third Circuit later kept those restrictions in effect while the state pursues U.S. Supreme Court review.
That dispute involves different statutes and does not directly decide the one-handgun-a-month case. The rulings could nevertheless influence how lower courts evaluate New Jersey’s historical evidence in other Second Amendment challenges.
No immediate change for handgun buyers
For now, eligible New Jersey residents must continue complying with the 30-day handgun purchase restriction and the state’s broader firearm permitting requirements.
The pending motions ask the court for a final decision, but they are not court orders. The judge could grant the plaintiffs’ request, side with New Jersey or determine that disputed issues require additional proceedings.
The Struck plaintiffs listed Dec. 15 as the motion date. The court is not required to rule on that date and could decide the dispute later based on the written submissions or after oral arguments.
