NFL Star’s Trip to Gun Store Highlights Absurdity of New Jersey’s Laws

You know that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to normalizing gun ownership in some parts of the country (and in some media circles) when a firearms purchase can generate headlines.

That was the case when New York Jets cornerback Sauce Gardner paid a visit to a New Jersey gun store to do a little shopping, with TMZ taking note of the football star’s latest acquisitions. 

Gardner — who has a gun license — shared an Instagram pic this week showing him holding a black and gold rifle at SC Arms, a weapons store known for high-quality items and celebrity clients. 

TMZ Sports has learned the rifle (which costs between $1,200 and $7,500) is one of three Gardner purchased while he was at the Spotswood, NJ retailer. We’re told he also got a handgun and a shotgun during the shopping spree as well.

SC Arms’ owner, Derek Pitera, described the NYJ cornerback as a valued customer, noting Sauce has actually taken classes at the shop.

I think it’s fantastic that Gardner isn’t just interested in buying guns, but also wants to be a safe, responsible, and accurate shooter. I’m also highly amused (and a little jealous) about the fact that the cornerback bought three guns in one trip, given New Jersey’s “one-gun-a-month” law. 

Neither Gardner nor Pitera broke the law with the multiple sales and purchases. As it turns out, New Jersey’s gun rationing law only applies to handguns, so the cornerback was in the clear when he purchased a rifle, shotgun, and a pistol at one go. 

In fact, Gardner could have purchased every rifle and shotgun that Pitera had in stock if he wanted to, but he’s still limited to just one pistol every 30 days under New Jersey’s ridiculous law. 

The gun rationing statute is supposedly meant to protect against straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking, but it comes at the expense of lawful gun owners. It’s also the subject of multiple lawsuits filed last year by Gun Owners of American, Gun Owners Foundation, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Firearms Policy Coalition, and several individual plaintiffs. The cases were consolidated back in June, but so far no date has been scheduled for oral argument in U.S. District Court. 

In California, however, a challenge to the state’s “1-in-30” law has already seen success. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district court ruling that found the gun rationing law unconstitutional, in Nguyen v. Bonta, a challenge brought by Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and San Diego Gun Owners PAC. The panel held that the law is facially unconstitutional because “the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.” 

The panel also held that California’s law is “not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” noting “the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.” 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is still weighing his options; either appeal the decision to an en banc panel of Ninth Circuit judges, appeal to the Supreme Court, or take the loss. 

New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin isn’t ready to take a knee when it comes to defending the similar statute in the Garden State, so gun owners like Gardner are still currently subjected to an ahistorical abomination of a restriction on their right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully that will soon change, and when Gardner next visits to SC Arms he’ll be able to purchase as many pistols as he’d like without worrying about committing a crime.