Major Lawsuit Could Wipe Out Bans Nationwide on a Controversial Firearm Add-On

Six leading gun rights organizations have joined forces to file a federal lawsuit against New Jersey’s total ban on suppressors. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, is being led by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Rifle Association (NRA), Safari Club International (SCI), the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), and the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS). According to SAF’s press release, the goal is clear: overturn New Jersey’s “unconstitutional ban” on suppressors and set a precedent that could dismantle similar bans in other states.

What the Lawsuit Is Challenging

The legal complaint, Padua v. Platkin, takes direct aim at New Jersey’s blanket criminalization of suppressors – even when residents fully comply with federal law. In New Jersey, simply possessing a suppressor is a fourth-degree crime, no matter if the owner has followed all federal procedures, including the notorious $200 NFA tax stamp. SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “Silencers are nothing more than mufflers… There is no justification for banning them.”

The Plaintiffs Behind the Lawsuit

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets reported on the three named individuals in the lawsuit: David Padua, a Marine Corps veteran with severe hearing damage; Michael Glenn, a former FDNY paramedic and presidential security detail member; and Brian Weber, a utility worker who built a private shooting range to train safely. Each of them follows the law to the letter – but they can’t legally own suppressors in their home state of New Jersey. “This isn’t just about suppressors,” Yanis stated. “It’s about whether the Constitution means what it says.”

Suppressors Are Legal in Most of America

According to the ASA, suppressors are already legal in 42 states and are widely accepted as hearing safety devices. Knox Williams, ASA’s Executive Director, called New Jersey’s position “unacceptable” and said that the state prioritizes “misguided political beliefs” over public health and constitutional rights. SAF points out that even the Centers for Disease Control and organizations like the American Academy of Otolaryngology endorse suppressors to prevent hearing damage. The science is settled – gunfire causes instant hearing loss, and suppressors reduce that danger.

The Bruen Test Changes Everything

The legal strategy hinges on the 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, any restriction on the right to bear arms must be supported by a “historical tradition” of similar laws. According to Jared Yanis, suppressors have been around for over a century and were never historically banned. In fact, former President Theodore Roosevelt famously used them while hunting. “New Jersey’s suppressor ban doesn’t have a leg to stand on under Bruen,” Yanis said.

Even the DOJ Admits Suppressors Are Protected

In a powerful twist, the Department of Justice recently admitted in court that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment. Yanis cited a Fifth Circuit case, U.S. v. Peterson, where the DOJ stated that “a ban on the possession of suppressors would be unconstitutional.” That’s a devastating blow to states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, which still enforce total bans. The admission removes any illusion that suppressors are legally different from other firearm components.

Suppressors Are Not What Hollywood Claims

Part of the problem, according to SAF and NRA spokesmen, is how suppressors are misrepresented in the media. “Lawmakers rely on Hollywood’s characterization of these tools,” said SAF’s Adam Kraut. In movies, they’re shown as tools for stealth assassins. In reality, suppressors reduce gunshots by about 20 to 35 decibels – making them more like car mufflers. They don’t make guns silent; they just make them safer. According to Yanis, the sound of a suppressed firearm is still roughly as loud as a jackhammer.

Medical Groups Say Suppressors Protect Health

The CDC, OSHA, and other health experts have made it clear: suppressors reduce the risk of permanent hearing damage. Hunters, firearm instructors, and home defenders can all benefit from lower decibel levels, which protect both users and bystanders. NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford emphasized that suppressors help preserve “situational awareness” and reduce recoil – making them valuable tools, not threats.

Hunters and Sportsmen Speak Out

Safari Club International views this as not just a gun rights issue but a hunting rights issue as well. SCI CEO W. Laird Hamberlin stated that suppressors make hunting safer and more responsible. In Europe, suppressors are common and often required to reduce noise pollution. SCI is especially concerned about New Jersey hunters who are being forced to choose between legal compliance and protecting their hearing.

The Lawsuit’s Demands

The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to do three things: first, declare New Jersey’s suppressor ban unconstitutional on its face and as applied; second, issue a permanent injunction blocking enforcement; and third, award legal fees and any other appropriate relief. They’re also invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows citizens to sue state officials who violate their constitutional rights. This could become a critical case for setting a national precedent.

This Could Be a Game-Changer Nationwide

Yanis and SAF both believe this case could collapse suppressor bans across America. Jared Yanis said bluntly: “This is going to be a big one.” He pointed out that the strength of the legal team, paired with overwhelming medical, historical, and constitutional support, makes this lawsuit difficult to ignore. With suppressors already legal in 42 states and even the federal government admitting they’re protected, the pressure is now squarely on the courts.

A Suppressor Isn’t a Weapon, It’s a Shield

Let’s be real – this case isn’t about sneaky weapons or spy gadgets. It’s about protecting your hearing while you exercise a constitutional right. It’s baffling that we allow car mufflers and construction site ear protection, but not firearm suppressors in some states. If anything, banning these devices actually causes more harm to citizens than good. The fact that this lawsuit had to be filed in the first place shows how far some states will go to pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist.

The Tide May Be Turning

With Bruen, the DOJ’s admissions, and growing public awareness, the ground is shifting. Suppressor bans are relics of fear-based policymaking, not public safety. This case could be the nail in the coffin for those outdated laws. The plaintiffs – Padua, Glenn, and Weber – are not criminals or extremists. They’re responsible Americans trying to protect their hearing and their rights. It’s time the law caught up with common sense.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.

The article Major Lawsuit Could Wipe Out Bans Nationwide on a Controversial Firearm Add-On first appeared on Survival World.