CAMDEN, N.J. — The motto of the United States Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) is “One mind, any weapon.” Sadly, that motto, and the principle behind it, has no practical application in New Jersey, where the state outlaws the possession of any “weapon” in public for self-defense. The practical reality forces residents to consider limited options like being a victim, retreating, or using lethal force.
A lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Knife Rights, Inc., and a handful of private plaintiffs seeks to change that, challenging the state’s blanket ban on “weapons” in the context of Supreme Court decisions like Bruen, Heller, and Caetano.
ANJRPC v. Davenport was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 21, 2026. It names both the New Jersey attorney general and the acting superintendent of the New Jersey Division of State Police as defendants.
New Jersey reluctantly began issuing permits to carry a concealed firearm without justifiable need in 2022, but the state’s wide-ranging definition of “weapon” not only precludes individuals from carrying the arm of their choice for self-defense, but it also renders New Jerseyans criminals for carrying ordinary objects. (The sole exceptions are one small device not holding more than 3/4 of an ounce of pepper spray, and an exception to the prohibition on firearms for permitted handguns.)
According to the complaint, “N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d) prohibits the possession of any weapon, that is, any object that could be used as a weapon,” and a 1990 court case (State v. Kelly) determined that self-defense is not a “lawful use.”
N.J.S. 2C:39’s broad definition of “weapon” means “anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury.” The statute makes it a crime to possess numerous specific items (including a gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, among others), “without any explainable lawful purpose.”
The listed items are a separate, per se ban under N.J.S. 2C:39-3(e) and 2C:39-9(d), not simply examples of the catch-all in 2C:39-5(d).
The broad definition under the statute “easily includes large numbers of ordinary objects such as a baseball bat, a stick, a cane, a knife, a hammer, a wrench, a screwdriver, a wood file, etc.” according to the complaint.
One of the plaintiffs has chosen not to apply for a permit to carry, even though she would qualify, because she “is not certain that she would be willing to use lawful deadly force with a firearm in public.” As a result she is limited to one .75-ounce pepper spray dispenser, with no backup, and no alternative non-lethal weapons.
“The Second Amendment protects all common arms, not just guns. There are many situations in which a person may prefer to defend against violent attack with something other than a firearm. New Jersey does not allow that,” states the complaint.
Though discussion of the Second Amendment often surrounds firearms, they are not the only arm that it protects, a point brought forth in the complaint as it relates to New Jersey’s extreme prohibition:
But in the post-Bruen world, such a sweeping prohibition cannot and must not stand. Just as a person has a fundamental right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, so too does a person have a fundamental right to carry other arms in public for self-defense, including arms in “common use,” that is, arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
That includes knives, sticks, tasers and stun guns, sprays of all sizes, and many other types of arms that New Jersey will put a person in prison merely for possessing in public. This must end.
Contrary to Supreme Court holdings, the statute per se prohibits items which are in common use and possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including knives in their various forms, impact weapons, slingshots (yes, the childhood toy many are familiar with), stun guns and tasers, and chemical sprays in excess of .75 ounces.
As the complaint adroitly states, “New Jersey demands that its citizens be defenseless when they go about their day in public.”
The complaint seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief.
