New Jersey lawmakers clearly lined up on the side against the Second Amendment after last year’s Supreme Court Bruen decision. The clear intent of the bench was to ensure the right to carry weapons outside of the home for self-defense, but the ruling went further.
It also established a standard by which the constitutionality of gun control laws must be met. They are required to, according to the majority, be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
New Jersey, however, took a decidedly different approach. It enacted new legislation creating so-called “sensitive places” that virtually wiped out the ability to legally carry away from home. A strong legal challenge immediately ensued.
Litigation was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society and four private citizens. The case is Koons v. Platkin.
Good news came in May when U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction against the state’s new law. New Jersey requested a stay on her ruling, and the SAF has now filed a brief opposing that request.
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb laid out the trouble with the New Jersey statute. “The state is trying to justify the challenged provisions of its ‘sensitive places’ law, which makes it virtually impossible for people with carry permits to actually go to most places.” As he explained, residents may walk out of their front door with legal weapons “but they can’t really go anywhere.”
The question is exactly how this restrictive law complies with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The simple answer is that it does not.
There clearly was no such founding-era tradition, and that clear fact should doom the New Jersey effort to trap the ability for self-defense within the home. Examples of that precedent do not exist, and the case should be a resounding victory for Second Amendment advocates.
