A federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s ban on firearm suppressors is advancing to a critical stage, marking a significant development in the broader legal fight over suppressor regulations and Second Amendment rights. The case, Padua v. Platkin, is now moving into the summary judgment phase after a federal court ordered the parties to complete expert discovery and prepare legal briefs.

The lawsuit argues that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment because they are commonly owned firearm accessories used for hearing protection and noise reduction. Plaintiffs also point to recent federal legal developments and growing challenges to remaining National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions.

New Jersey officials continue to defend the state’s outright suppressor ban, arguing that suppressors are not protected arms and that historical firearm regulations support the restriction. However, the court’s decision to move the case forward suggests the constitutional questions at the center of the dispute may soon receive a direct ruling.

Gun rights advocates believe the outcome could have nationwide implications, especially for states like California, New York, and Illinois that maintain similar suppressor prohibitions. If successful, the case could become a major step toward overturning state-level suppressor bans across the country.