TRENTON, N.J. — Though it is mostly being done through back-office channels, the New Jersey Attorney General, who is litigating a case against Glock, may be shifting its approach after intense public pressure resulting from media coverage and threats from gun rights groups.
On Saturday, May 16, News2A broke the news that the attorney general sent subpoenas to a substantial number of New Jersey federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) seeking detailed sales records of transfers of Glock handguns, as it relates to the state’s December 2024 lawsuit against Glock, Davenport v. Glock.
It’s not clear if the subpoena campaign was initially more comprehensive, or the AG’s office under a new administration simply bungled the execution and communications, but over the last two days, as scrutiny from gun rights groups has increased, they have provided sporadic updates clarifying the scope and content of the subpoenas, dramatically shifting tone.
Yesterday, News2A obtained a copy of a letter sent by a private law firm conducting the subpoena matters on behalf of the attorney general in this case. This letter, addressed to an FFL, confirms statements from the AG’s office, but also portrays a far more conciliatory approach, likely in response to threatened legal action.
Click here to see a copy of the letter that was sent to FFLs.
With regard to personal information of individual customers, the letter affirms the following:
The Attorney General is not seeking any customer-identifying information, personally identifiable information, or individual customer records. In particular, the Attorney General’s request #1 regarding “all sales” only seeks aggregate information concerning sales and/or transfers of Glock handguns to New Jersey customers in whatever form you maintain or can reasonably provide that information.
The letter notes that the requested information can be provided “in summary or aggregate form.”
Twice the letter states that “The Attorney General is prepared to work cooperatively…” suggesting approaches that would “[limit] burdens” and addressing ways to resolve requests that are “burdensome as written.”
As we initially reported, FFLs told us that complying with the subpoena instructions would be incredibly costly and time consuming, and additionally, they interpreted the state’s instructions to include complete copies of unredacted sales records.
It’s still unclear why the state is using this legal strategy since the State Police Superintendent already possesses a record of all firearms transfers. Gun rights legal analysts pointed out this would have doxxed gun owners. It’s also unclear how the state defined the selection of FFLs that received the subpoenas. The AG’s office declined to comment on both of these questions.
Second Amendment Foundation, which also obtained a copy of this letter and is also following this case, stated the following in a post on X:
The broad language of the subpoena itself has raised concerns that the AG’s office is seeking an incredibly problematic swath of firearm purchaser data. While this letter purports to clarify what the AG’s office is actually seeking, a number of concerns remain.
Thanks for this. From my point of view, the underlying gambit here is obviously related to the “Glock Switch” problem, and how it can be used to harass gun owners in NJ. I would bet that they chose to go to the FFLs because police departments gave a flat ‘no’ to going through their records for Glock owners, on the basis of manpower and cost. However, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The AG’s office gets the aggregate numbers and issues some kind of statement along the lines of: “… there are x-thousand legally-owned handguns in NJ that are capable… Read more »