Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

1
A 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.
Full long article: https://www.nj.com/news/2023/01/judge-b ... blems.html

Finally a Federal Judge that looked at the Constitution.
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.
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?

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.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

2
Good ruling.

It's an interesting evolution. SCOTUS has always said it's an individual right to keep and bear. So does the constitution. So does the militia act. Unfortunately, they were silent on it for a great many years while states infringed away. Appeals courts had thought they could defer to states wishes through interest balancing away the right for (insert concern here). Bruen said no. Now states must find historical (not 1900s) law (sufficient to be a tradition, not a one-off) to back their restrictions. Interest balancing occured at ratification and is no longer allowed.

The volume of lawsuits right now is hard to keep up with. The appeals courts seem poised to continue the bullshit that got them Breun. SCOTUS is currently considering an appeal to intervene in the injunction/stay game CA2 is playing with NY's new carry law.

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

3
Yup, the new New York and New Jersey concealed carry laws and the CA concealed carry bill that never became law, were blue state revenge for the Bruen decision. TRO granted pending a temporary injunction. NY's law was appealed to the 2nd Circuit, this case if appealed would go to the 3rd Circuit.
The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as the holders of valid permits from the State to conceal carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ry_tro.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

4
A federal judge on Monday blocked more of New Jersey’s gun carry law from being enforced, less than a month after she blocked other sections of the newly-enacted law. The order issued by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb — an appointee of former President George W. Bush — temporarily lifts the blanket prohibition on carrying guns in public parks, on beaches and in casinos. A prior order Bumb issued earlier this month blocked sections of the law that prohibited guns from being carried in places where alcohol is served, in public libraries or museums, entertainment facilities and on private property where the owner does not give explicit permission. It also blocked restrictions on how guns are carried in vehicles. The earlier order remains in effect.

The new law, which Gov. Phil Murphy signed in December, revamped the state’s gun carry application process and requirements, and established “sensitive places” where guns could not be carried. The law was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June which drastically expanded the scope of who could carry guns outside the home. A legal challenge was filed immediately after Murphy signed the measure into law.
Gun rights groups did not get everything they sought from Bumb. For example, the judge said the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the prohibition of guns being carried in zoos, medical facilities, airports and on movie sets. Gun rights groups also wanted her to block the prohibition of carrying guns on playgrounds. Bumb denied that request, declaring that playgrounds were analogous to schools — area courts have suggested guns cannot be carried. Challenges to those provisions of the law, however, are expected to resurface in later phases of the litigation.
“This marks the beginning of the end for Governor Murphy’s blatantly unconstitutional new carry law, which is going down in flames,” Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said in a statement. “Murphy has clearly demonstrated that constitutional issues are indeed above his pay grade.” In her 46-page opinion, Bumb, sitting in Camden, wrote that the state failed to provide evidence that some “sensitive places” defined in the law were analogous to “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the legal standard for bearing guns being carried somewhere.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/3 ... w-00080245
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

6
So, not a lawyer, but what does 'keep and bear arms' mean?
The right to bear arms generally refers to a person's right to possess weapons. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right, making it very difficult for Congress to regulate guns.
Agree but it doesn't say keep and bear a "concealed" arm....And there are many restrictions and infringements on various Bill of Rights amendments. LIke freedom of assembly but requiring a permit. And infringements on the 2A on private property....

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

7
featureless wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:56 am It's good to see that at least some judges have stopped with the interest balancing.
Agree. Hopefully some of the other courts take note. Hopefully the SCOTUS finally puts the brakes on the California centric west coast court that keeps flipping off the high court.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

9
Jondoe541 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:02 pm Sorry to derail but it seems like lately all the gun cases are about concealed carry, are there any assault weapon/large magazine ban cases in the Appeals courts or heading to Supremes?
A NJ group has been working on the large cap case since the idiot law was implemented in 2018. Funny, NJ ALREADY had a 15 round cap limit and virtually NOBODY was complaining about until they lowered it to 10 based on "feel good" non-science. It was a wind-fall for gun smiths, but cost us all hundreds or more.

And it made ZERO significant difference to shootings and gun deaths in the years since. ZERO!!!
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

10
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:50 pm And it made ZERO significant difference to shootings and gun deaths in the years since. ZERO!!!
Say it ain't so! Unbelievable. :)

CA is warming up its carry restrictions. Newsom and Bonta had an hour long presser about SB2 today. Same bill that failed by a vote last year due to the urgency clause. It'll pass this time leaving legal CCW holders only public roadways.

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

11
featureless wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:58 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:50 pm And it made ZERO significant difference to shootings and gun deaths in the years since. ZERO!!!
Say it ain't so! Unbelievable. :)

CA is warming up its carry restrictions. Newsom and Bonta had an hour long presser about SB2 today. Same bill that failed by a vote last year due to the urgency clause. It'll pass this time leaving legal CCW holders only public roadways.
That was my own research. I went to NJSP records on shootings and shooting deaths in March of each year from 2018--2024. In March of 2018, the 15 round limit was in effect, but in 2019 it was a 10 round limit. I saw literally ZERO reduction of shootings or shooting deaths, in fact even a bit of an increase! Now, I didn't regress out possible influential variables or go that far--not enough data points, and I'd probably have to do it month by month through Nov 2018 (The law was passed in mid 2018, but went into effect in mid-Dec).
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

13
featureless wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:29 am Appreciate the time you spent to confirm what we all strongly suspect!
I agree with featureless,, thanks YT for confirming our experiences in CA, that restricting magazine capacity has no impact on shootings or gun violence. Democrats enacting mag restrictions is just like Republicans banning some library books, it helps them whore for more votes at election time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Judge blocks key parts of N.J.’s new concealed carry gun law, cites constitutional problems

15
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:10 pm My work is by no means definitive, merely a sketch-out for a more substantive study, but I believe that if there HAD been an effect, we would have seen shooting and deaths obviously plunge. They did the opposite.
Definitive is not necessary (would be ignored anyway). But identifying trends for our discussion purposes is great and feeds further club-sanctioned research, Amicus briefs, etc. More non tainted, liberal-generated, factual information is good.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests