N.J. is seeking tough restrictions for carrying guns in public.

[DavidH]

A judge already threw out all NY*s ridiculous *off-limits* spots except the normal ones, (school zones & I think voting poll locations or something?) But the absurd places were given a NO-DICE ruling. The same will happen in NJ.

At this point if I was living in NJ I*d just apply & start carrying. F**K *em if they can*t take a joke! I*d gladly be a martyr for this cause! Same with NY. I bet pro-2A sources would have NO problem helping to take a case like that against a squeaky-clean citizen like me, to the Supreme Court! And foot*n the legal bill to boot! (New Jersey/New York vs David Hoback) Has a nice ring to it I think.

[PASE717]

[ShadeRabbit]

[buckengr]

That judge was brutal! This is exactly the type of ruling we need.

Text of judges decision:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...06033.34.0.pdf

As State Defendants argue, a “hasty injunction would short-circuit the democratic process while the litigation process is underway.”3 [State’s Br. at 2.] This Court concurs, in that no injunction should ever be hastily issued, but Defendants must do more than promise they will justify the constitutional basis for its legislation later. Surely, Defendants had—or should have had—the historical materials and analyses the State relied upon when it began its legislative response to Bruen. After all, the Supreme Court was clear that in order for any gun control legislation to pass constitutional muster under the Second Amendment, such legislation must be consistent with historical tradition.

The State has had six months since Bruen to identify well-established and representative historical analogues.4 See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133 (“analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”) In fact, Chapter 131 expressly states that the “sensitive-place prohibitions on dangerous weapons set forth in this act are rooted in history and tradition . . . analogous to historical laws that can be found from the Founding era to Reconstruction, which are also found in modern laws in many states.” 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 1(g).5

That Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their argument discussing the benefits of the firearms regulations and not evidence of historical analogues is quite telling. And although Defendants represent that the “State will offer ample evidence that Chapter 131 is constitutional,” [State’s Br. at 2], they do not adequately explain why—if such evidence was critical to the passage of the legislation that would pass constitutional muster post-Bruen and available to the Legislature as set forth in Section 1(g) of the statute—they have not introduced such evidence here.

[Walleye Hunter]

What we need is penalties for those who try to enact these laws.

[Defender]

That judge was brutal! This is exactly the type of ruling we need.

Text of judges decision:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...06033.34.0.pdf

I thought the Democrats loved the Constitution and the reviews by Federal Judges?

[Defender]

What we need is penalties for those who try to enact these laws.

In a sane world these people would be voted out of office.

[wew3]

Here's a story that appeared in the WSJ on 1/9.



Federal Judge Strikes Down New Jersey Gun Law
Judge called restrictions ‘extensive and burdensome,’ in ruling they violated the Second Amendment
Updated Jan. 9, 2023 7:57 pm ET

A federal judge Monday blocked enforcement of a New Jersey law that prohibits the carrying of firearms in certain public places, ruling it violates the Second Amendment.

New Jersey can’t enforce bans on concealed weapons in public libraries and museums, bars and entertainment facilities, according to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb. She also blocked a provision that required businesses to indicate that they specifically allow people to carry on their premises.

“Together, the new restrictions are so extensive and burdensome that they render Plaintiffs’ right to armed self-defense in public a nullity,” Judge Bumb, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in granting a temporary restraining order.

Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey passed the restrictions last year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down New York’s concealed-weapons permitting regime. The 6-3 Bruen decision said states could ban firearms in “sensitive places” such as libraries and government buildings, but said any restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The ruling prompted several new laws, largely in Democratic-led jurisdictions, aimed at regulating firearm usage.

Gun-rights organizations have filed lawsuits to challenge the new laws, and a similar suite of restrictions in New York was also put on hold last year. Other changes to New Jersey’s permitting process—including a provision that requires pistol owners to obtain liability insurance—weren’t challenged. The insurance requirements aren’t yet in effect.

“While we are pleased that most of our concealed carry law remains in effect, we are disappointed that a right-wing federal judge, without any serious justification, has chosen to invalidate common sense restrictions around the right to carry a firearm in certain public spaces,” said a spokesman for Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.

The spokesman said the state was considering an appeal. “We are working closely with the Attorney General’s Office to correct this errant decision and to ensure that the law will be reinstated in its entirety.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a collection of people who hold concealed-weapons permits and regularly carry firearms while conducting business. They were supported by gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Bill Sack, the organization’s director of legal operations, said he was thrilled by the ruling and said the law’s enforcement would have caused irreparable constitutional injury.

Write to Jimmy Vielkind at jimmy.vielkind@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications
A spokesman for New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said the state was considering an appeal of the gun-law ruling. An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed that assertion and related direct quote to Mr. Murphy. (Corrected on Jan. 9.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal...le_email_share