U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb had issued an injunction, labeling the state’s measures as “plainly unconstitutional.” But that was not enough to sway the three-judge panel, which voted 2-1 to allow the law blocking carrying firearms in so-called “sensitive areas” to be enforced while litigation makes its way through the courts.
The controversial law bans carrying firearms in a multitude of places, including within 100 feet of bars and restaurants, entertainment facilities, and zoos.
Not all of the law passed muster. New Jersey residents will still be allowed to possess guns in vehicles and movie sets, and the sweeping ban on carrying on private property where the owner has not posted signs warning that weapons are prohibited is still under injunction. These owners may still refuse to allow firearms on their property.
The state attempted to mandate that those who exercise constitutional carry have insurance. The injunction against this provision also stands.
Still, the overall effect of the appeals court ruling was a victory for those who wish to eradicate gun rights in New Jersey. Gov. Phil Murphy (D) celebrated the decision as a victory for his crusade against the Second Amendment.
Expressing his satisfaction with the Third Circuit, Murphy said the judges “correctly stayed the district court’s dangerous injunction that allowed individuals to carry weapons in places like parks and zoos, libraries and museums, bars and casinos, and permitted demonstrations. This is a tremendous win for public safety, and we will continue fighting for our law.”
Murphy added that “this decision will make New Jersey a safer state for us all.”
Not all agreed, of course. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, issued a statement in response to the ruling. The organization urged members to “take care” to stay informed as the legal battle over the state law continues to develop.
It was late December when Gov. Murphy signed legislation into law to seriously limit where guns may be possessed in the state. This came as a direct response and counter to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier in 2022 that expanded carry protections to where they have traditionally been.
The measure, A4769 (22R), was the culmination of efforts of the state’s anti-gun lobby to sharply curtail Second Amendment rights. It enacted some of the most stringent regulations in the country and came in direct contrast to the Bruen decision.
That ruling by the nation’s high court had the exact opposite effect.
State lawmakers, and it goes all the way up to Murphy and his crusade against gun rights, immediately acted like spoiled children who were told they would not get their way.
Instead of realizing the law of the land was clearly not in their favor, they stomped their feet and pieced together whatever laws they could enact in utter defiance of the Supreme Court.
Despite the appeals court ruling, New Jersey’s action will likely only mean that taxpayers are spending more money to pursue a fruitless case. When the intent of the high court is as clear as it was with Bruen, legislation passed in clear defiance should ultimately fail.
Of course, there is no way to predict how the case currently in litigation will be settled, but one thing is certain. New Jersey’s leadership is intent on finding a back door to circumvent the Supreme Court and sharply curtail individual liberties.
This action deserved to be emphatically struck down.
