Plaintiff challenges New Jersey officials over firearm disclosure law

Dwight D. Mitchell has taken a bold step to challenge the constitutionality of New Jersey’s firearm disclosure laws, raising questions about individual rights and state mandates. On February 15, 2026, Mitchell filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Col. Patrick J. Callahan, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief concerning N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4.4(b)(1), which requires permit holders to disclose the presence of a handgun during law enforcement stops.

Mitchell, representing himself pro se, argues that this mandate infringes upon his constitutional rights under the Second Amendment by imposing undue burdens on lawful conduct involving firearms. He contends that transporting an unloaded and securely stored handgun should not necessitate immediate disclosure to law enforcement officers—a requirement he claims violates both his First Amendment rights against compelled speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. “The Disclosure Mandate irrationally singles out vetted permit holders for heightened criminal liability,” Mitchell asserts in his complaint.

Furthermore, Mitchell points out that this state law conflicts with federal statutes like the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which provides safe passage protections for lawful firearm transport across state lines without being subject to varying state restrictions. He believes that New Jersey’s mandate imposes additional conditions that Congress intended to prevent when it enacted FOPA.

In seeking relief from the court, Mitchell requests declarations that N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4.4(b)(1) is unconstitutional both as applied to him and on its face. He also asks for temporary and permanent injunctions preventing its enforcement against him during his lawful activities involving firearms transportation. His prayer for relief includes reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, despite representing himself in this legal battle.

The case raises significant issues regarding states’ powers versus individual constitutional rights, particularly in how laws affect gun owners who comply with federal regulations but face stricter state requirements. With potential implications beyond New Jersey’s borders, this case could influence future interpretations of gun laws across the United States.

The legal proceedings are set before Judge Michael A. Shipp (MAS) with Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh (RLS) presiding over preliminary matters under Case ID 3:26-cv-01511-MAS-RLS.