CAMDEN, N.J. — On September 14, the plaintiffs in Benton v. Davenport filed a motion for summary judgment in a case challenging New Jersey’s gun rationing statute that limits law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
A motion for summary judgment is a request for the court to make a decision when there are no disputed facts, and in their motion the plaintiffs (Matthew Struck, Daniel Francisco, Firearms Policy Coalition, and National Rifle Association) point out that a very similar law was struck down in California by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a June 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (arguably the most hostile circuit court when it comes to Second Amendment issues) ruled against California’s firearm rationing measure, with a mandate against it taking effect shortly thereafter on August 14, 2025.
In a press statement on the 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling, FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski observed, “California has managed to do what many thought impossible: violate the Second Amendment so blatantly that even the Ninth Circuit won’t uphold it.”
New Jersey is an outlier, one of only five states to have enacted a handgun rationing law, with the earliest such statute dating back to 1975. The Benton v. Davenport suit dates back to 2024 (after being consolidated with another similar case, Benton). Even more pernicious is the fact brought forth in the motion that many of the nation’s gun control laws have historical roots in racism:
Indeed, the Framers never imposed rationing schemes on the acquisition of handguns – or on any other type of weapon, for that matter. The same is true of the Reconstruction generation, even though their gun-control efforts largely “aimed to perpetuate the subjugation of blacks” following the Civil War.
(In fact, New Jersey data shows significant racial disparities in its gun control measures that preclude blacks from owning firearms at an order of magnitude higher than whites, a peculiarity that journalist and News2A contributor John Petrolino has investigated aggressively with significant resistance from the state.)
“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 in a press statement.
New Jersey citizens recently experienced another major win when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state’s so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazine bans in July. The court stayed its own mandate in August to await a related decision from an upcoming case being heard by the Supreme Court.
