A recent legal filing contests whether individuals convicted of certain non-violent offenses can be denied the right to possess firearms when those offenses are not historically grounds for disarmament. The case was brought by Doreen Acciardi (also known as Doreen Livingston) and Anthony Acciardi Sr., who filed a complaint on April 5, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the United States of America and the State of New Jersey.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are residents of New Jersey who previously operated a gentlemen’s club in Sayreville under the name “35 Club.” During an investigation into their business operations, law enforcement executed a search warrant at their home and seized several handguns. The plaintiffs assert that all seized firearms were legally owned with valid permits issued by New Jersey.
The legal dispute centers on what happened after criminal charges were resolved. Both plaintiffs pleaded guilty to maintaining a place of prostitution and failure to pay state tax under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-12(c). Following sentencing and after their window for appeal closed, they requested that all property not subject to civil forfeiture—including their firearms—be returned. The complaint states that while some property was covered by a civil forfeiture action, none of the seized firearms were included in such proceedings.
Despite these requests, “the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office has failed and refused to return the seized firearms,” according to court documents. The plaintiffs argue that neither was convicted of a violent crime or any offense indicating risk of firearm misuse. They further claim that their convictions do not fall within categories historically used to justify disarmament in either federal or state law.
The complaint references recent judicial precedents such as N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (597 U.S. 1 [2022]) and Range v. Attorney General United States (124 F 4th 218 [3d Cir. 2024]), asserting that “their right to own firearms is presumptively protected” by the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs maintain that neither federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922 nor New Jersey’s own felon-in-possession law N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-7 should apply to them given their specific circumstances.
On these grounds, they seek several forms of relief from the court:
– A declaratory judgment stating that withholding their firearms violates their civil rights under Section 1983,
– A declaration that applying either federal or state felon-in-possession statutes to them would be unconstitutional,
– Injunctive relief requiring return of their property,
– Attorneys’ fees and costs,
– Any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Jeffrey A. Bronster, whose office is located at 17 Wendell Place in Fairview, New Jersey. The case has been assigned Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-03598.
Source: 226cv03598_Acciardi_v_United_States_of_America_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
