Decision here. It’s important to know this was not a Second Amendment challenge to one-gun-a-month, but rather a challenge based on an obscure provision in federal law that preempts the states from prohibiting air guns, and New Jersey law treats air guns identically to firearms. The court held that the rationing does not amount to complete prohibition, and thus is not preempted:
Because the One Gun Law regulates but does not prohibit the sale of B-B and air guns, it is not preempted by Â§ 5001(g)(ii).
ANJRPC also challenged the exemption process, as a violation of due process, since the exemption is impossible to obtain.
We also reject the Appellantsâ€˜ claim that the implementation of the exemptions violates due process. The District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims after it dismissed the federal claims. Because we affirm its dismissal of the federal claims, we hold that the Court properly declined jurisdiction over the state law claims.
This will likely be spun by our opponents, but it was a novel theory to attempt to defeat the gun rationing scheme, and it is wholly inapplicable to other states, which do not regulate air guns as New Jersey does. It also means nothing in regards as to whether such a rationing scheme is constitutional per the Second Amendment.