New Jersey AG Still Fighting Against ‘Machineguns,’ Ignores Text, History and Tradition

New Jersey Attorney General Platkin is leading a multi-state lawsuit attacking the Trump administration’s forced reset trigger settlement agreement that Platkin claims, in effect, legalizes machineguns. Platkin is arguably the most anti-gun attorney general in the history of the Garden State. On Monday June 9, 2025, the NJ AG, along with like-minded anti-gun attorneys general from Maryland and Delaware, announced a filing that challenges the private settlement agreement between Rare Breed Triggers and the United States Government.

Platkin claims that the settlement agreed to by the DOJ will, “[D]istribute thousands of these illegal devices into our communities and endanger our residents.”

A 25-minutes press event featuring Platkin along with Delaware AG Kathy Jennings and Maryland AG Anthony Brown was full of “public safety” happy talk. “We’re here today, this morning, to announce a lawsuit which seeks to prevent the Trump administration’s efforts to effectively legalize machineguns in this country,” Platkin said. “Yes, you heard me correctly on that point.”

An unsuspecting public might believe Platkin’s false claim. That’s no doubt what the AG is counting on. And in New Jersey, machineguns are essentially illegal already, so what’s the big deal? Or are they?

NJ Rev Stat § 2C:58-5 tells an interesting story:

a. Any person who desires to purchase, possess and carry a machine gun or assault firearm in this State may apply for a license to do so by filing in the Superior Court in the county in which he resides, or conducts his business if a nonresident, a written application setting forth in detail his reasons for desiring such a license. […]

The statute explains that a person must navigate this application process through the courts. If this licensing process has been a thing for all these years, why has no one has ever gotten one? 

One of the requirements explicitly states that . . .

No license shall be issued to any person who would not qualify for a permit to carry a handgun under section 2C:58-4, and no license shall be issued unless the court finds that the public safety and welfare so require.

There are now about 70,000 permit to carry holders in the Garden State who would be eligible to apply for one of these licenses. Would the “public safety and welfare so require”? Good question. A good discretionary question of a highly subjective nature.

New Jersey is one of those states that has an extra law outlawing so-called “machinegun conversion devices.” Any such device would already be illegal under federal law. However, just because Platkin & Company claim that a FRT is a machinegun, doesn’t make it so.

As Platkin said . . .

Looking at the coalition of states that we have joining us, if you go on the federal government’s website, I’m sure they’ll take it down after I say this, you can see states ranked by levels of gun violence, and the states in our coalition are all clustered at the lowest levels of gun violence in the country. And the states that would welcome these machineguns in have the highest rates of gun violence in the country. So, you know, what the federal government is doing demonstrably will make people less safe.

The fact is, progressive states are doing everything they possibly can to obstruct liberty prospering anywhere in the U.S. Constitutionality be damned. When asked about the constitutionality of FRT bans, as a whole, Platkin deflected.

Shooting News Weekly was curious about how the AG’s complaint handles the text, history and tradition test of gun control. We asked Platkin: “Per Bruen, I’m just curious, what is the historical analogue from 1791 that says banning an FRT would be constitutional?”

“Hey, John, […] you can read our brief, which is now public, and see the–all of our arguments,” Platkin replied. “As you know, courts have not conclusively said it has to be from 1791. There’s an open legal debate about whether it’s 1791, or the Reconstruction Era. It’s not really the point of this.” Platkin then changed the subject delivered another speech about how this is all about public safety. 

But we weren’t finished. SNW asked Platkin, “In U.S. v. Cargill, they extensively covered, you know, machine gun action, and you know that’s settled precedent, and they made it clear that it has to do with the single function of the trigger. Doesn’t an FRT require multiple functions of the trigger? It’s not, it’s not one single function.”

“No. It is one single function. And we lay this out in the brief…you pull the trigger back and hold it, and it will continuously fire,” Platkin said. “One pull of the trigger, holds it down, fire 900 rounds a minute. If that’s not a machine gun, I don’t know what is.”

The filing by Platkin & Company is pure political posturing. How a group of 16 state attorneys general think they have standing to interfere with a private settlement remains to be seen.

How is this going to flesh out? We’ll have to see if the AGs are granted a sweeping nationwide injunction on the settlement. Or maybe this will all be a waste of taxpayer funds on another politically motivated frivolous lawsuit.