[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-302353-105":53,"doc-detail-302353-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","plaintiffs-brief-in-support-of-plaintiffs-amended-motion-for-summary-judgment","Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment","","A legal brief arguing that New Jersey’s short-barreled rifle (SBR) ban violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment framework. The submission relies on Bruen’s two-step test: when the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the state must show the restriction aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The brief contends SBRs fall within “arms,” that the statute functions as a categorical possession ban, and that no well-established historical analogue supports banning SBRs by barrel or overall length. It rejects interest balancing and asserts entitlement to requested relief.",{"@graph":63,"@context":122},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/plaintiffs-brief-in-support-of-plaintiffs-amended-motion-for-summary-judgment/302353/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/plaintiffs-brief-in-support-of-plaintiffs-amended-motion-for-summary-judgment/302353.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Adam","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-27","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":9},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114,118],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What standard does the brief use to evaluate the New Jersey SBR ban?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The brief uses the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the state must prove the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the brief argue SBRs fall under the Second Amendment?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The brief asserts the Second Amendment’s text covers “arms” broadly, and that SBRs are ordinary rifles designed to fire from the shoulder, differing only in barrel or overall length while using the same core components and function.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the brief characterize New Jersey’s SBR law?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The brief characterizes it as a categorical possession ban that criminalizes possession of otherwise lawful rifles based on an arbitrary measurement, imposing years of imprisonment.",{"name":119,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Does the brief accept interest-balancing or public-safety justifications?",{"text":121,"@type":109},"No. The brief argues the Supreme Court rejects interest balancing in Second Amendment cases and that history—not legislative predictions—controls under Bruen.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":124,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":56},302353,1790507395,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":9,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":144,"read_time":8},1374404737137,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Case 3:25-cv-13522-RK-JTQ Document 19-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 31 PageID:  \n183  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY  \nFIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., LUIGI DECECCO, RICHARD FORD, DANIEL FRANCISCO, ERIC LOWMASTER, JAMES SHOCKLEY, HIGH CALIBER ORDNANCE LLC, and LOUIE G’S OUTDOORS,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nJENNIFER DAVENPORT, Attorney General of New Jersey, and JEANNE HENGEMUHLE, Acting Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police,  \nDefendants.  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \nCivil Action No. 3:25-cv-13522  \nPLAINTIFFS’BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  \nPLAINTIFFS’AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  \nBradley P. Lehman (No. 129762014)  \nWHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLC  \n600 North King Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, Delaware 19801  \n(302) 295-5674  \n[blehman@whitefordlaw.com](blehman@whitefordlaw.com)  \nOF COUNSEL: Chad Flores Flores Law PLLC  \n917 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002  \n(713) 364-6640  \n*Pro hac vice application forthcoming  \nCounsel for Plaintiffs  \nCase 3:25-cv-13522-RK-JTQ Document 19-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 31 PageID:  \n184  \nTable of Contents  \nTable of Contents .......................................................................................................2  \nSummary of the Argument .........................................................................................3  \nStatement of Facts ......................................................................................................5  \nI. Short-barreled rifles are in common use for legal purposes............................5  \nII. New Jersey bans SBRs....................................................................................8  \nIII. Defendants enforce New Jersey’s SBR ban..................................................10  \nIV. New Jersey’s SBR ban irreparably harms Plaintiffs......................................10  \nArgument.................................................................................................................. 11  \nI. The Count One Second Amendment Claim is meritorious...........................12  \nA. The Second Amendment's Text Covers Plaintiffs' Conduct.................12  \nB. New Jersey cannot carry its burden......................................................16  \nII. Plaintiffs are entitled to all requested relief...................................................25  \nA. Individual Plaintiffs ..............................................................................26  \nB. Business Plaintiffs ................................................................................27  \nC. Plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc..............................................28  \nConclusion ...............................................................................................................29  \nCertificate of Service ...............................................................................................31  \nCase 3:25-cv-13522-RK-JTQ Document 19-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 31 PageID:  \n185  \nSummary of the Argument  \nNew Jersey’s short-barreled rifle (“SBR”) ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s settled Second Amendment framework. Bruen supplies the rule:  \nwhen the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the State must prove its restriction is consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.  \nNew York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17–18 (2022) . This case is a clean application of that test on undisputed facts.  \nThe plain text of the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence atthe time of the founding.” [Id.](Id. at 28)[ at 28](Id. at 28) (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.  \n570, 582 (2008)) . The Supreme Court has defined “arms” under the Second Amendment broadly with a “general definition” that includes all “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.” Id. SBRs are “Arms","cbCaigsi4HRvS7I6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigsi4HRvS7I6","pdf",221216,31,"English","# Summary of the Argument\n## Statement of Facts\n## Argument\n### The Count One Second Amendment Claim is meritorious\n#### The Second Amendment's Text Covers Plaintiffs' Conduct\n#### New Jersey cannot carry its burden\n### Plaintiffs are entitled to all requested relief\n#### Individual Plaintiffs\n#### Business Plaintiffs\n#### Plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc\n# Conclusion\n# Certificate of Service","[{\"question\":\"What standard does the brief use to evaluate the New Jersey SBR ban?\",\"answer\":\"The brief uses the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the state must prove the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the brief argue SBRs fall under the Second Amendment?\",\"answer\":\"The brief asserts the Second Amendment’s text covers “arms” broadly, and that SBRs are ordinary rifles designed to fire from the shoulder, differing only in barrel or overall length while using the same core components and function.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the brief characterize New Jersey’s SBR law?\",\"answer\":\"The brief characterizes it as a categorical possession ban that criminalizes possession of otherwise lawful rifles based on an arbitrary measurement, imposing years of imprisonment.\"},{\"question\":\"Does the brief accept interest-balancing or public-safety justifications?\",\"answer\":\"No. The brief argues the Supreme Court rejects interest balancing in Second Amendment cases and that history—not legislative predictions—controls under Bruen.\"}]","Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment | PDF",1789792176]