A major new federal lawsuit dropped last week, and I have to tell you — after reviewing the complaint in Padua v. Platkin, No. 1:25-cv-13527 (D.N.J.), I believe it is the most comprehensive, most persuasive suppressor complaint ever filed in an American court. The NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the American Suppressor Association, Safari Club International, and the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate joined together and sued New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan on July 18, 2025. The attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and Hartman & Winnicki, P.C. — including lead counsel Daniel Schmutter — have done something remarkable: they pulled every major suppressor argument, every piece of data, and every relevant precedent into a single, devastating document.
Suppressors Are Arms — Full Stop
The threshold question in any Second Amendment case is whether the regulated object is an “arm” under the text of the amendment. This complaint answers that question convincingly, and the legal foundation is rock solid.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), established that “arms” includes any instrument capable of offensive or defensive use. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), expanded that concept: “instruments that facilitate armed self-defense” fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text. A suppressor is precisely that instrument. It reduces recoil, controls shot flinch, preserves the shooter’s hearing, and maintains situational awareness during a home-defense encounter. Congress has treated suppressors as firearms under the National Firearms Act since the 1930s. Under both Heller and Bruen, that settles the textual question.
The complaint also makes a point I have long argued: a ban on suppressors is not merely a restriction on an accessory. It is a categorical ban on all firearms capable of firing suppressed rounds — the same logical structure that makes a ban on standard-capacity magazines a ban on an entire category of firearms. Heller specifically held that banning an entire category of arms in common use is unconstitutional.
The Numbers Kill New Jersey’s Case
Once suppressors are presumptively protected arms, the burden shifts entirely to the government. New Jersey has to show a historical tradition of suppressor bans. It cannot. But it gets worse for the state: it also cannot show that suppressors are “dangerous and unusual.”
The facts in this complaint are devastating. As of 2025, more than 4.5 million suppressors are lawfully registered under the NFA in the United States. They are in common use by an enormous margin. And according to federal data cited in the complaint, suppressors are involved in only roughly 30 to 40 crimes per year nationwide. Let that sink in: 4.5 million devices, 30 to 40 crimes annually. These are among the most law-abiding pieces of equipment in the country. They cannot possibly satisfy the conjunctive Heller test — the state must prove they are both dangerous AND unusual. They are neither.
Medical Science, Hunters, and the Courtesy Argument
What makes this complaint genuinely exceptional is how thoroughly it documents every dimension of why suppressors are beneficial, not dangerous. The hearing protection argument draws on CDC data and peer-reviewed medical literature, including meta-analyses, confirming that sustained exposure to unsuppressed gunfire causes permanent hearing damage including tinnitus. Medical and public health organizations specifically recommend suppressors as protective devices.
The complaint also addresses hunters in detail — a point that deserves more attention than it usually gets. Hunters often cannot wear traditional hearing protection in the field because they need to hear their surroundings: approaching game, other hunters, environmental hazards. Suppressed firearms give them both. And for home defense, the complaint’s own language says it best:
“Because in addition to dampening sound, suppressors reduce recoil and shot flinch, allowing greater control of a firearm and improved accuracy. In the event that an individual must use a firearm for self-defense, the individual may not have ear muffs or earplugs at his or her disposal. Accordingly, a suppressed firearm allows the individual to exercise self-defense or defense of the home while minimizing the risk of permanent hearing loss. Further, the individual retains the ability to effectively communicate with other household members and hear outside noise or signals which may aid in coordinating self-defense activities or contacting law enforcement.”
Powerful stuff — and that paragraph alone should give every New Jersey legislator pause.
The Right to Train Ties It Together
The complaint also invokes Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011), which held that the Second Amendment protects not just possession but the right to train with firearms. The core right “wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.” Suppressed training is safer training — it reduces shooter fatigue, lowers hearing loss risk, and improves the repetitions that make lawful gun owners more accurate and more responsible. The U.S. Marine Corps uses suppressed fire in training for exactly this reason. If training is constitutionally protected, then tools that make training safer and more effective carry the same constitutional color.
My read is that New Jersey has no viable path to defend this ban. The data is overwhelming, the legal framework is airtight, and the attorneys behind this complaint have filed something the Second Amendment community should study carefully.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.