New Jersey just rolled the dice on perhaps one of the riskiest civil liberty cases it has ever embarked upon by formally escalating its criteria for disqualifying firearms owners. In a recent New Jersey State Court Appellate Division case, the New Jersey Attorney General has taken the position that “speech may be used to make the individualized determination of… suitability to be issued an FPIC, consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The case has caught the attention of the 2A legal community for its blatantly unconstitutional posture. Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), told News2A in a statement:
New Jersey is arguing that if protected First Amendment speech is offensive enough, they can deny the Second Amendment right. That’s obviously unconstitutional.
The state views this case as a top priority. It has assigned five Deputy Attorneys General from the state Division of Law, including David Leit, Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Special Litigation, who often leads litigation on Second Amendment issues. Even more significantly, the outgoing New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, has proactively intervened – a first to our knowledge – to defend the state’s position, even requesting permission to testify at upcoming oral arguments, yet to be scheduled.
The prominence of the state actors involved would suggest it is facing a well-funded and well-respected coalition of gun rights groups with significant capabilities. In reality, the state has marshalled these resources against a singular pro se litigant – that is to say, the state is facing off against a 24-year-old man with no law degree who is representing himself.
Avi Rachlin (also known by his popular X handle, @avsterbone) is a Michigan resident who applied for a non-resident Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) on February 29, 2024. Commonly known in New Jersey as an “FID Card,” it is the first step a firearm owner must take to lawfully purchase and possess a firearm in New Jersey. As a Michigan resident, the FID Card would bestow benefits like exemptions to possession restrictions and easier transport, but only for rifles and shotguns. Handguns are regulated under a completely different statute. Mr. Rachlin is not currently seeking a New Jersey permit to carry a handgun.
On April 22, 2024, the New Jersey State Police (who handle non-resident applications) denied his application. The denial wasn’t due to disqualifiers such as criminal history, protective orders, or a record of commitment to a mental health institution. Under testimony, the New Jersey State Police affirmed that they issued the denial after considering the following elements:
- Two previous denials for an FPIC by Freehold Township in 2022 (when Mr. Rachlin was a New Jersey resident).
- Google search results, including “postings on Reddit [that] spoke to violent ideations.”
- A petition by the student body to have him removed from Penn State University.
Not withstanding the 2022 Bruen Supreme Court decision that struck down such subjective criteria, the state denied Mr. Rachlin’s application based upon 2C:58-3(c)(5), which prohibits issuance “To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.”
The opinion notes that the denial was issued specifically because of “…violent tendencies toward law enforcement and the general public…” and “the basis that he lacked the essential character and temperament…” as laid out in the statute governing issuance.
(It should be noted that the 2020 and 2022 denials from Freehold Township turned upon a voluntary, singular, and brief outpatient mental health evaluation resulting in a report that Mr. Rachlin was of sound mind and there were no ineligibilities that would disqualify him from firearms ownership. Nevertheless, after violating the statutorily required response timeframe, the town’s Chief of Police denied his application, rejecting a letter from his caregiver as sufficient evidence.)
In addition to having no arrest, conviction, or commitment record at the time this current application was submitted, Mr. Rachlin held permits to carry a firearm from New Hampshire, Maryland, Utah, Rhode Island, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia (today he holds a total of 10, including Pennsylvania). Each of those applications required a criminal background check, and in some cases, the issuing authority required the applicant to disclose if he had ever been denied a permit. Mr. Rachlin disclosed his two New Jersey denials to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, none of which denied him a permit.
When Mr. Rachlin appealed the denial, the state of New Jersey, represented by the Warren County Prosecutor’s Office, presented evidence which included the two previous FPIC denials along with “racially charged videos” and “concerning statements about school shootings, sexual assault, and murder.” Indeed, Mr. Rachlin did write in response to a theoretical question posted on Reddit that if he could get away with it and face no consequences, he would do the following:
Oh man, I’d do a bunch of fucked up shit. To start, I’d rape a bunch of really hot girls. I’d then probably start driving around and shoot at random cars & pedestrians GTA style. I’d definitely shoot up a school and make sure “Pumped Up Kicks” is blasting on the loud speaker. I’d then impersonate a cop and commit police brutality. I’d then take over the White House and become dictator of the U.S. Oh, and I’d rob banks so I have enough money for life. Ok I’m done.
Replying to another Redditor who commented on the original post, he went on to add the following in an additional post:
You’re right. I’d need to do more to cover up my tracks. I guess I’d have to kill my rape victims and when I assume power to prevent a revolution ensure I buy the loyalty of the military through mass payouts. I’d hijack the Federal Reserve to control the nation’s dollar. Not sure if I could accomplish this all in 24 hours but I wouldn’t have a choice. Too many people would want me dead once immunity ends.
To be clear, many – if not most – in society consider the contested language used by Mr. Rachlin to be inflammatory and deeply offensive, even if employed sarcastically or satirically, as he insists should be evident given the context. As odious as these words may be to some, they are also protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
We remind our readers that Mr. Rachlin had ZERO criminal record at the time of application (a status that is unchanged as of this writing). Regardless, New Jersey used this as the primary evidence to deny his application for an FID card under 2C:58-3(c)(5).
In April 2024, Mr. Rachlin appealed his FID card denial to the New Jersey State Superior Court located in Warren County, and on May 6, 2025, in a de novo hearing, he brought a broad facial challenge addressing the constitutionality of the laws under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. He also challenged the FPIC requirements as applied to non-residents of New Jersey under the Dormant Commerce, Full Faith and Credit, and Privilege and Immunities clauses.
On May 22, 2025, the State Superior Court denied his appeal. In the court’s opinion, Judge Reema Sethi Kareer acknowledged the free speech principles at play, setting a shocking precedent when answering the question of whether statute or constitutional rights should reign supreme when pitted against each other:
Appellant may argue and the court may agree (no matter how offensive) that speech is to be protected by the first amendment, however, as noted in the statute, even “statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others” is grounds for exclusion under N.J. law.
Simultaneously, the court also decided that the numerous background checks that Mr. Rachlin passed in order to obtain other state permits were not evidence worth considering when it came to evaluating standards under 2C:58-3(c)(5):
Moreover, the fact that Appellant contains permits from nine other states does not sway this court as N.J.’s gun law is one of the most restrictive in the nation, which embodies the “conscientious legislative efforts aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of all dangerously unfit persons, noncriminal as well as criminal.”
His appeal denied, Mr. Rachlin then appealed to the State Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, on June 10, 2025, raising the same facial and as-applied challenges as before. Both Mr. Rachlin and the state submitted briefs ahead of the yet-unscheduled oral arguments.
That is when New Jersey delivered an unexpected and highly unusual request, with the New Jersey Attorney General’s office requesting, on December 10, 2025, to appear as amicus curiae and to appear at oral arguments.
This case is evolving in the context of some very significant legal proceedings in other areas that are related and noteworthy.
First, on June 18, 2025, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sent a joint letter, along with Attorneys General from 15 other states, to Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, and head of the Justice Department. In this letter, Platkin argued that “we believe that our residents’ lives should not be defined by the worst mistakes of their pasts,” going on to suggest guidelines for how the DOJ should administer a program granting relief to those who have been disqualified from possessing firearms (convicted felons of any kind or those convicted of misdemeanors that carry a potential sentence greater than one year).
Second, an element of significant context is the now-consolidated Koons v. Platkin case currently with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This case, which will be re-heard en banc on February 11, 2026, addresses New Jersey’s “sensitive place” prohibitions on concealed carry as well as 2C:58-3(c)(5) character-based requirements, which it defines as “essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” In its May 2023 decision, the court dismissed this challenge for the Siegel plaintiffs based upon lack of standing – that is, the plaintiffs did not have an example, such as Mr. Rachlin, where the requirement chilled the exercise of his rights.
Third, a case commonly known as “M.U.,” addressing the same subject, was litigated in New Jersey Superior Court in 2023. M.U., who legally owned firearms in New Jersey, was denied a permit to purchase a handgun based upon discretionary “public health, safety, or welfare” criteria. The state then revoked his FPIC card and attempted to compel the sale of his firearms, even though he was not a disqualified person under state or federal statute. An appellate court later upheld the permit denial and revocation but reversed the firearm forfeiture, noting that it required a different statutory process. No further appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is known regarding this case. As it relates to Mr. Rachlin’s case, New Jersey now has a plethora of challenges against its arbitrary and capricious permitting scheme, perhaps contributing to its aggressive response.
To summarize, in this case, New Jersey’s legal position is that constitutionally protected speech is grounds to disqualify one’s constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, forcing the individual to effectively choose between which rights he desires to exercise – an unconstitutional position that will surely be difficult to defend at the higher level of the judiciary.
(It should also be noted that the concept of trading one right for another is not entirely new. For example, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which also happen to fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, owning firearms legally means being subject to warrantless home searches by police. Effectively, citizens there are required to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights to exercise their Second Amendment rights. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has already filed suit against the U.S. Virgin Islands regarding this matter.)
Mr. Rachlin’s case raises the stakes for the state, which is already embroiled in numerous legal challenges surrounding Second Amendment issues, including an “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazine” ban case. These legal challenges are of significant enough importance that even the Department of Justice weighed in with a brief this year in a separate, high-profile case being adjudicated at the Third Circuit.
