Full long article: https://www.nj.com/news/2023/01/judge-b ... blems.htmlA federal judge on Monday hit the brakes on New Jersey’s new concealed carry gun law, finding that the tough restrictions on where and when a person can carry a firearm in public present “considerable constitutional problems.”
The ruling comes less than three weeks after Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation that he and his Democratic colleagues in the Legislature to strictly limit concealed carry in an array of “sensitive places” and prohibiting permit-holders from keeping a loaded gun in their car.
In a 60-page decision, Judge Renee Marie Bumb — a George W. Bush appointee — issued a temporary restraining order against New Jersey officials preventing them from enforcing certain provisions of the law, including the “sensitive places” restriction and the restrictions placed to carry in cars and private property. The law specifies dozens of places where guns are not allowed, including schools, courthouses, and parks and beaches.
Bumb also sharply criticized state leaders, whom she wrote “should have been better prepared to defend the legislation’s constitutionality.”
The ruling means the main portions of the new law could be on hold for months while the case wends its way through federal courts. Gun-rights advocates hailed the decision, while New Jersey officials downplayed the ruling as an expected hurdle in the state’s efforts to curb gun violence.
Finally a Federal Judge that looked at the Constitution.
The right of the people, etc. is the sticking point. Is it a total right or one that can be infringed? There seems to be the idea that some rights can be infringed such as carrying a gun in certain places or that some people can be prohibited from owning a gun. Does this mean the second amendment is not an unalienable right, unlike the fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination?A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is where we have the Inalienable Right versus Privilege. If the Government, (Federal State or local), sets restrictions on an action is it a right or a privilege? Here are two examples.
The state of Texas requires all drivers of vehicles on public roads to have a drivers license. That makes diving on a public road a privilege granted by the state. It isn't a right. It can be revoked by the state for various reasons.
Now example two. Many years ago it was illegal to carry a concealed hand gun in Texas unless you were a select group of people, mainly LEOs. I couldn't carry a concealed handgun until the state passed the Concealed Handgun License permit law. It require classroom and proficiency test along with background check. Upon passing all this I was granted a Concealed Handgun License. That gave me the privilege of carrying a concealed handgun in certain areas. They could remove that privilege at anytime. The state has since passed a law that allows handgun carry without the license except for those that can't pass the ATF Form 4473.
An unalienable right cannot be revoked. But we have seen the Right to keep and bear arms can be limited and revoked. So it bears watching what is ruled in the Federal court in New Jersey.