Franklin Armory, Inc. v. New Jersey

• Decision Date: 22 January 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 19-19323 (FLW)
• Parties: FRANKLIN ARMORY, INC., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

FRANKLIN ARMORY, INC., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 19-19323 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

January 22, 2021

OPINION

WOLFSON, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Franklin Armory, Inc. ("Franklin Armory" or "Plaintiff"), a firearms manufacturer, alleges that, defendants the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey State Police (the "State Police"), Patrick A. Callahan (in his official capacity as Superintendent of the State of New Jersey Police) ("Callahan"), Gurbir Grewal (in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey) ("Grewal"), and the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety (the "Department of Law") (collectively, "Defendants") violated Plaintiff's Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by precluding Plaintiff from selling the Reformation, one of the firearms it manufactures, to federally licensed firearm retailers in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff also asserts state law tortious interference and defamation claims. In the instant matter, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Complaint, i.e., Plaintiff's Section 1983 and declaratory judgment claims based on alleged violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, against defendants the State of New Jersey, the State Police, and the Department of Law are dismissed with prejudice; however, those claims are dismissed without prejudice with respect to Grewal and Callahan. Plaintiff is given leave to amend itsComplaint with respect to the Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims within thirty (30) days in order to replead those claims against Callahan and Grewal, or name new defendants, if appropriate. Counts III-VIII of the Complaint, which are Plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with economic advantage, defamation, defamation per se, civil conspiracy, and Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages pursuant to Section 1983 are barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed against all Defendants.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Relevant Firearms Laws

Before recounting the factual background and procedural history of this case, I will briefly review the relevant statutory and regulatory context in which Plaintiff's claims arise. Here, Plaintiff's Second Amendment claim largely challenges Defendants' interpretations of the relevant state and federal firearms laws, specifically, the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 (the "NFA"); the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921 (the "GCA"); and various New Jersey state firearms statutes, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:39-1m to -1o, as they related to Plaintiff's firearm, the Reformation.

i. The Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("BATFE") enforces both the NFA and the GCA. 28 C.F.R. § 0.130(a)(1)-(2). The NFA regulates the sale, ownership, use, and transport of short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, silencers, suppressors, and "destructive devices." Under the NFA, a "shotgun" is a

weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall includeany such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

26 U.S.C. § 5845 (d). The NFA defines a "rifle" as

a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

26 U.S.C. § 5845 (c). The GCA provides for the licensing of firearm manufacturers and dealers. A federal firearms license is required for anyone "engage[d] in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms," 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)(1), and federally licensed firearm manufacturers and dealers can ship directly to state licensed firearm retailers. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(c).

ii. The State Statutes

The terms "rifle" and "shotgun" are also defined under New Jersey law. Under New Jersey law, a "shotgun" is

any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shots or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, or any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder which does not fire fixed ammunition.

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(n). A "rifle" is defined as

any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(m). New Jersey law prohibits the sale of "sawed off shot guns" and assault firearms/weapon. A "sawed-off shotgun" is

any shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length measured from the breech to the muzzle, or a rifle having a barrel orbarrels of less than 16 inches in length measured from the breech to the muzzle, or any firearm made from a rifle or a shotgun, whether by alteration, or otherwise, if such firearm as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(o). Among other things, an assault weapon includes any "semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock" and any "[a] semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds," and "[a] part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person." N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(w)(3-5).

The firearm at issue, the Reformation, allegedly lacks either a smooth or a rifled bore, which - under the statutory definitions - are components of a rifle and a shotgun, respectively, under New Jersey law.

B. Plaintiff's Claims

Franklin Armory, a Nevada corporation, is a licensed manufacturer of firearms and firearm parts.¹ Compl. ¶¶ 6, 20. One of the firearms manufactured by Plaintiff is the Reformation. Id. at ¶ 20. The Reformation is a unique firearm that is designed to "expel a single projectile through an unrifled barrel that has straight-cut lands-and-grooves." Id. ¶ 20-23. In 2018, the BATFE allegedly evaluated the Reformation and classified it as a "firearm" that is not regulated under the NFA because its design includes neither a rifled bore nor provides for the utilization of a fixedshotgun shell. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. Rather, the BATFE purportedly concluded that the Reformation was a "short-barreled shot gun" within the scope of the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921. Id. at ¶ 25.

i. Franklin Armory's Attempts to Sell the Reformation in New Jersey

After reviewing New Jersey's firearm laws, Franklin Armory believed it could legally sell the Reformation through federally licensed firearm retailers in the State of New Jersey, and allegedly began taking the necessary steps to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27. Franklin Armory sought to begin selling the Reformation in New Jersey around April 2019, and entered into "at least one" sales contracts with such a New Jersey retailer, and communicated with others. Id. at ¶ 27. At that time, one of the New Jersey firearm retailers purportedly contacted the State Police regarding the legality of selling the Reformation in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 28. Allegedly, Detective J. Hearne from the State Police initially advised the retailer that the Reformation "would be eligible for sale in New Jersey" and that the Reformation "currently fits within the laws of the state as legal." Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, Detective Hearne contacted Franklin Armory to request a letter formally describing the Reformation's characteristics in order for the State Police to assess the firearm's legality. Id. at ¶ 30. On or about April 3, 2019, Detective Sergeant Brett Bloom, Assistant Head of the Firearms Investigation Unit, purportedly confirmed in writing that the sale of the Reformation was legal under New Jersey law.² Id. at ¶ 32. However, in the letter, Detective Sergeant Bloom also allegedly expressed his concern that law enforcement might mistake the Reformation for an "assault weapon" or a "sawed-off-shotgun," both of which are prohibited under New Jersey law, which might lead to improper prosecution of individual purchasers. Id. ¶ 33. Accordingly, Detective Sergeant Bloom instructed Plaintiff not to sell the Reformation in NewJersey until receiving a "legal opinion" from the Office of the Attorney General. Id. In response to Detective Sergeant Bloom's letter, Franklin Armory agreed to temporarily delay selling the Reformation in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 35. While the State's response was pending, Franklin Armory was advised by at least one of its retail clients that the State Police had contacted the store. Id. at ¶ 37. As a result of its communication(s) with the State Police, the firearms dealer apparently cancelled its Reformation order. Id. fssff sdf

Thirty days following the State Police's inquiry, Franklin Armory informed the State Police of its intention to begin selling the Reformation on April 29, 2019. Id. at ¶ 38. Detective Sergeant Bloom responded to Franklin Armory's letter and allegedly prohibited it from engaging in the sale of the Reformation, until the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General weighed in on the Reformation's legality. Id. at ¶ 39. The letter...