HACKENSACK, N.J. — The saying, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” is aptly illustrated when it comes to New Jersey infringing upon individuals’ Second Amendment rights. As proof, gun rights groups filed an amended complaint against three municipalities on June 1.
The story began in November of 2025 when New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) sued Fort Lee on behalf of a private citizen. In December of 2025, settlement negotiations began, but gun rights groups at the time said, “this was only the first step in the case,” hinting at legal actions to come.
On June 1, those actions manifested with an amended complaint that included more plaintiffs, paints a broader picture of abuses, and seeks a jury trial.
The core principle of the original lawsuit is a challenge against a New Jersey county’s habit of unlawfully disarming and stripping rights away from an individual who is cohabitating with anyone suspected of being prohibited from possessing firearms. In other words, in the eyes of the state, proximity or association with a prohibited individual somehow nullifies another’s rights.
This is exactly the scenario that litigants present in their amended complaint. “The fact pattern surrounding the clear abuse of authority by the Bergen County Prosecutor in completely restricting Mr. Aliaj’s rights warranted the filing of our initial complaint. In response, numerous additional plaintiffs came forward,” said Joe LoPorto, director of legal operations at NJFOS in a media statement. “These additional plaintiffs make clear that the bully tactics employed by the BCPO are not a one-off, but evidence of a pattern and practice that proves our need for the broad injunctive relief demanded in our complaint. These policies and practices are completely unmoored in either state law or any legal framework consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The amended complaint adds two additional plaintiffs who are both Bergen County residents, one from Paramus and the other from Rochelle Park, and goes on to argue these are not isolated incidents but evidence of a systematic approach to disarming law-abiding citizens:
County Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including Plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.
According to the complaint, these comprehensively administered policies have yielded numerous negative outcomes for individuals that include:
- Confiscation of firearms, ammunition, and accessories
- Compelled sales of firearms*, ammunition, and accessories
- Revocation of Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) and other licenses
- Denial of applications for FPICs or other firearms licenses
- Compelled production of cohabitant medical records
In the simplest of terms, the county has routinely disarmed individuals even though they were in no way prohibited under a subjective application of the law, simply by applying disqualifiers to the people they lived with.
Or, as the complaint puts it, “Defendants cited, invoked, and relied upon one or more of the Issuance Disqualifiers against each of the Plaintiffs, even though none of the Issuance Disqualifiers were applicable to any of the Plaintiffs, but at most only applicable to their cohabitants.”
The mechanism used, according to the complaint, is “based on nothing more than ‘the State’s concerns,’ which are not codified in any law.”
The complaint goes on to add that remedies for individuals who are victims of this misapplication of the law occur only with legal pressure, stating, “…County Defendants only relax enforcement of the Policies when they are sued, and only for individuals who undertake the substantial time and effort, and expends the resources, to sue.”
Seizure of firearms and compelled sale or non-return
In New Jersey, if firearms are seized and not returned to the person from whom they were seized, that person becomes a prohibited possessor in the state. This includes a compelled sale, which is usually done without a return of the firearms to the original owner, or any other circumstance under which the firearms were not returned. The person becomes ineligible to purchase or possess firearms in the state.
