TRENTON, N.J. — On September 8, the Second Amendment Foundation, a well-known nonprofit organization with national membership dedicated to protecting 2A rights, filed an amicus brief in a novel case arising out of New Jersey that has implications for both Second and First Amendment rights.
Our readers may be familiar with the case, which we covered in detail, given a number of its unusual characteristics, including the fact that the litigant is representing himself, and that the New Jersey attorney general at the time (Matthew Platkin) moved to intervene as an amicus and appear at oral arguments, with a number of other state DOJ employees in tow.
“The Petitioner in the New Jersey case is not even alleged to have committed any crimes. He is not a prohibited person, owns firearms in his home state, and has nonresident carry permits from ten other states (including strict ones like Massachusetts and Maryland). But what he has done is that he has very publicly said some vile things. His speech, while certainly worthy of scorn, is not license for New Jersey to violate the Second Amendment,” said SAF in an X post, announcing the amicus brief.
The brief picks up in support of Mr. Rachlin’s appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey after an unpublished opinion affirmed denial of a non-resident Firearms Purchaser Identification Card in June of 2026. (You can also check out our thread documenting the May oral arguments.)
“The Petitioner in this case has undoubtedly said some reprehensible things. His racist and sexist views are despicable, and if that speech leads him into social ostracism, perhaps it would be deserved. But from a constitutional perspective, what is more disturbing than anything the Petitioner has said is what the courts below have ruled,” begins the 24-page SAF brief, authored by attorney Daniel Schmutter.
It’s relatively rare to see national gun rights groups intervene in cases, especially those they have not backed from the beginning. However, Mr. Rachlin’s case invites particular scrutiny because New Jersey has chosen to deny him the ability to exercise Second Amendment activities based upon protected speech – and the state continues to double down with help from the court.
First, the brief addresses the fact that the court must get over the hurdle that “bad facts make bad law,” as the aphorism goes. SAF suggests that a similarly uncomfortable set of facts in the case of Hemani before the United States Supreme Court “did not stop the Supreme Court from ruling that his recreational marijuana use – the only crime he was charged with – was not grounds to disarm him…”
The brief addresses a recurring theme that is happening in the State of New Jersey with both individuals and businesses: “Here, the Petitioner has not been charged with any crime.”
As we’ve previously documented, Mr. Rachlin has been issued (and holds) carry permits from 10 other states, making New Jersey’s denial “in and of itself, proof of the subjectivity inherent to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5),” according to the brief, and adding that, “Due to that subjectivity, the law is automatically unconstitutional under Bruen, and this Court can decide this case on that basis alone.”
SAF also dedicates a fair portion of the brief to addressing how there is no historical precedent supporting the denial of Mr. Rachlin’s FPIC.
The brief concludes, “Amicus can understand why Petitioner’s FPIC application was denied. He certainly has done nothing to make himself sympathetic given his vile views. But ultimately, that denial violates the Second Amendment.”
