Federal District Judge Renee Bumb has ruled that the plaintiffs challenging New Jersey’s post-Bruen temper tantrum legislation have “a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge” when the case is finally fully heard in court. Thus, she issued a temporary restraining order yesterday again blocking enforcement of most of the new law’s concealed carry bans.
Bumb is the same judge who issued a TRO in a similar “sensitive places” challenge case earlier this month and has now dealt the state another blow to its dream of making New Jersey one big “gun-free” zone.
The latest gun control scheme signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy designates much of the state as a “sensitive place,” thus banning concealed carry in any of those locations. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge bans in places like airports, hospitals, zoos and movie sets, but blocked enforcement of the ban on carry in most other locations designated as no-go zones under the law.
Plaintiffs have made a strong showing of irreparable harm if the emergent relief is not granted. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have made a strong showing of constitutional injury given their Second Amendment rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court also agrees that “[i]n cases alleging constitutional injury, a strong showing of a constitutional deprivation that results in noncompensable damages ordinarily warrants a finding of irreparable harm.” …
In Bruen and Heller, the Supreme Court expressly identified restrictions at certain sensitive places (such as schools) to be well-settled, even though the 18thand 19th-century evidence has revealed few categories in number. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2133 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626)). The inference, the Court suggested, is that some gun-free zones are simply obvious, undisputed, and uncontroversial. These are: (a) certain government buildings (such as legislative assemblies or courthouses or where the Government is acting within the heartland of its authority), (b) polling places, and (c) schools. Id. Bruen further instructs courts to consider analogies to such sensitive places when considering whether the Government can meet its burden of showing that a given regulation is constitutionally permissible.
Again, read the full ruling here.
New Jersey residents with carry permits will be able to continue to carry legally in locations such as bars and restaurants, casinos, entertainment facilities, parks, beaches and youth sporting events, at least until the case is ultimately decided.
Private property owners will still, of course, be able to prohibit concealed carry if they choose. But the law designating all private property off limits without express owner consent has been blocked, at least for now.
Baby Steps to restoring our Freedoms – Any “Win” is a good “Win”
The usual Second Amendment under the microscope and bright lights while Gun Control and its History of rot hides in the shadows…enjoy the kangaroo courtroom drama.
We have all heard the saying, “Give someone an inch and they will take a mile.” That saying applies every bit as much to the never ending “sensitive places” facet of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller ruling (which the recent U.S. Supreme Court Bruen ruling referenced).
Saying it another way, the Heller ruling’s “sensitive places” concept is the gift that keeps on giving to the forces of civilian disarmament.
While I do not like it, I can accept the notion that the public cannot be armed in a courtroom in connection with a criminal trial or civil trial where penalties can be immense–assuming that the courtroom is secured with controlled entry points, metal detectors at the entrances, and armed police on site. And I can also accept disarming the public at mental health facilities when those facilities house violent patients or patients with suicide risk. Finally, it goes without saying that we disarm public visitors and most staff at prisons.
What I do not accept is the notion that “sensitive places” extends to all manner of locations such as schools, bars, amusement parks, entertainment venues, churches, hospitals, voting locations, and on and on and on. Violent criminals can and do attack at all of those locations. Attempting to disarm the public at those locations is nothing more than an attempt to appease the civilian disarmament industrial complex.
If everyone in the courtroom has a gun there should be no concern about a defendant or family member having one.
Mental health facilities, sure. A person not in control of their faculties should not have weapons, or a wide variety of other tools and devices. When I have worked in lockdown mental health units, I have not been allowed to leave ordinary oxygen tubing out because patients might hang themselves or garrote their roommate.
Prisons, sure. People known and proven to be violent to other people without good cause should not have weapons while incarcerated. If they are safe enough to release into the public their rights should be fully restored.
But we are massively over using prisons to house non violent rule breakers. Thieves and vandals should be made to recompense their victims, not be housed at further expense to their victims. There should be no drug crimes at all, unless you forcibly inject someone else with something against their will. Sex crimes should also be limited to forcible acts or acts involving minors. You should not be imprisoned for providing people with goods and services they want enough to pay for, or for consuming something just because other people don’t like it.
Litigants, particularly in divorce or child custody cases, have been know to smuggle in handguns, and when the ruling is, as they expect, against them, they have been known to shoot their attorney, their spouse, the other attorney and the judge. Bailiffs have been shot. And many of these folks did not survive. If you write the rule barring only litigants from carrying, there is nothing to prevent that litigant having a friend in the gallery from providing the requisite firepower.
Every federal courthouse and every state court in California has metal detectors and armed security personnel. The latter is kind of funny; stare law explicitly provides that a CCW holder may legally carry in court, but every judge has issued a local rule barring knives, guns, and other weapons. Most if not all benches are bullet proof.
And the worst part is that the WHOLE “sensitive places” clause in Heller has been entirely misinterpreted by both sides. That statement was footnoted with this statement:
“We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”
The critical key word there is “presumptively.” Heller was about a law that prohibited a law abiding citizen from keeping an operable firearm in his own home.
The statement about sensitive places was limited by the word “presumptively,” because Heller did NOT address those laws. They were “presumed” to be lawful, simply because that was the Status Quo at the time. The validity of those laws were not in scope of Heller, and it would have been inappropriate for Scalia to strike them down in the Heller ruling.
The gun-haters took those words, and fabricated their significance out of thin air and with NO legal justification whatsoever. Everyone else has been along for that faulty ride ever since.
TFred,
Agree on all points.
Here is a simple summary of the two most recent and relevant U.S. Supreme court cases on our right to keep and bear arms:
Heller:
Established that “the People”–not just our present day military and law enforcement–have an individual right to keep and bear arms in our homes.
Bruen:
Established that “the People” have an individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home. And established that any government restrictions on that right must be consistent with the scope of that individual right (history and tradition) when the states ratified the Bill of Rights (which includes our right to keep and bear arms).
The Bruen ruling is far reaching since there were virtually no limits on our right to keep and bear arms when the states ratified the Bill of Rights (which includes our right to keep and bear arms). While I am not a History expert, I am well informed and the only founding-era prohibition which I believe that the Bruen decision would uphold is disarming suspects under arrest and prisoners in jail/prison.
I imagine that a forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling will have to explicitly define and radically limit the concept of “sensitive places”–which could either work for or against us depending on the number of Conservative versus Progressive members of the court.
And yet another forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling will have to weigh-in on prohibiting firearm ownership after serving a prison sentence and parole, especially for non-violent ex-convicts.
Wasn’t McDonald (2010) the one that established our individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home?
Bruen (2022) was the case that established the “text, tradition, and history” standard.
“Wasn’t McDonald (2010) the one that established our individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home?”
Not quite. Heller (2008 – possession inside the home) applied only to the Federal government (it was a DC law in question.) McDonald (2010) was in Chicago, and was the first case to “incorporate” the Second Amendment to State and Local governments.
Bruen (2022) was the first to confirm that the Second Amendment also applied to carrying outside one’s home.
NJ has made it to about where we were in early November let’s see if the state appeals to the 3rd for a stay of injunction pre trial like what we saw with the 2nd. Either way race you neighbors.
“…let’s see if the state appeals to the 3rd for a stay of injunction…”
Ya think?
These “little” wins are important for a certain amount of momentum and traction, but until the masses replace elitists like Murphy, Biden, et al, it will be a continuous back-and-forth, leaving the “Average Joe” with little confidence as to whether he is within, or outside “The Law”. At the time…
Craig in IA,
“… until the masses replace elitists like Murphy, Biden, et al, it will be a continuous back-and-forth, leaving the ‘Average Joe’ with little confidence as to whether he is within, or outside ‘The Law’. At the time…”
That is a “beneficial” side-effect of the Ruling Class agenda.
I really, REALLY, REALLY wish that the masses would see the TRUTH about the overwhelming majority of the members of the Ruling Class. And that truth has two components:
1) The Ruling Class acts to consolidate as much wealth and power unto themselves as possible. Thus it is A-OK to exploit, use, abuse, and consume the Working Class as necessary to consolidate wealth and power.
2) Many of the Ruling Class are totally fine with taking whatever they want for entertainment, thrills, and pleasure–including unthinkable acts with underage boys and girls. A smaller subset actually derives sick and sadistic pleasure in causing chaos and suffering on the societal level.
I used to have the mindset that the Ruling Class facilitated pain and suffering due to misguided intentions or incompetence. Recent observations have convinced me that, by and large, the Ruling Class intentionally facilitates pain and suffering.
Your points are well-taken, however all that you list has been going on since the early Egyptians, except that ancient culture never had to conceal their clout, or act like they were a bit embarrassed by their social status.
March 20th for our main district court hearing/decision then things start to get real at the circuit level depending on rulings. Till then civil rights ping pong.
Great. On 4/20 the legal eagles will have probably gotten all buzzed up in preparation…
Cool! Oh good fights going on in ILLANNOY. A heap of suits for the inept Kwame Raoul idiot to deal with(with taxpayer $).
“New Jersey residents with carry permits will be able to continue to carry legally in locations such as bars and restaurants, casinos, entertainment facilities, parks, beaches and youth sporting events, at least until the case is ultimately decided.”
And, how many is that?
3 licensed carriers?
Weird….
“Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2133 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626)). The inference, the Court suggested, is that some gun-free zones are simply obvious, undisputed, and uncontroversial. These are: (a) certain government buildings (such as legislative assemblies or courthouses or where the Government is acting within the heartland of its authority), (b) polling places, and (c) schools. ”
Prior to the very late 1960’s for California and the mid-1970’s for NY that any firearms were banned in schools; it was common for teachers, staff, and students to have firearms in schools (typically only students couldn’t carry in school during classes, and dropped off and retrieved for after school activities)… in the 1980’s it started to spread to a few other states and schools and only became “federal” in 1991 with the unconstitutional Gun Free Zones Act and with a direct correlation/causation occurring shortly thereafter of mass school shootings exponentially increasing.
As for “Certain” government buildings, once again the history and legislation allowed everyone to carry in them, with the first unconstitutional laws being enacted in the mid-late 20th Century changing that…..
It’s all about disarmament so the government can tell us how the cow ate the cabbage.
From my cold dead hand!
We Dont Care What No Stinking Judge Says… .
They will continue to create these unlawful laws, and continue to lose in court. It’s just what they do. Unhappy losers.
The judge let stand the ban on guns on movie sets?
Hmm, I guess they’ll have to film new episodes of The Sopranos in some other state, as well as every action film, crime film, detective film, police film, murder mystery, etc.
But on the bright side, banning guns on movie set might stop Alec Baldwin from murdering anyone else on his movie set the way he killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Any law that stops Alec Baldwin before he kills again… LOL.
Those were rejections on standing, not based on facts of the case. Since I’ve never been on a movie set and probably never will be, it’s tough to argue that I’m affected by the law. They just need to find somebody who would be affected, such as a caterer, although a lefty industry like film would probably blacklist anyone who filed. The secured area of an airport is one location where sensitive places might hold up since they are limited in scope and have screening of everyone. It’s a tougher case for the ticketing, carousels, ground transportation, etc. The zoo restriction is silly — are they worried about poachers?