She also declared that automatic private property gun restrictions and a new gun insurance mandate were unenforceable.
Bumb did find in Koons v. Platkin that many of New Jersey’s permitting requirements passed constitutional muster, so it wasn’t a complete victory for gun rights. Still, the decision struck down most of the restrictions that were enacted after last year’s Supreme Court Bruen decision.
“The Constitution leaves the States some measures to combat handgun violence,” she wrote. “But what the Second Amendment prohibits the States from doing, and what the State of New Jersey has done here… is to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. That is plainly unconstitutional.”
She added that most of the permitting requirements passed by lawmakers were consistent with the Second Amendment. “This Nation has historically disarmed dangerous individuals or individuals who could endanger the public with a firearm.”
Bumb backed up her findings with a massive 235-page ruling. The judge noted that New Jersey obviously disagrees with Bruen. However, “it cannot disobey the Supreme Court by declaring most of New Jersey off limits for law-abiding citizens who have the constitutional right for armed self-defense.”
In the wake of 2022’s monumental Bruen decision, a clear pattern has been established. Anti-gun states rushed to enact a series of laws that explicitly violated the Justices’ intent, gun rights advocates filed lawsuits, and the court ruled that state governments overstepped their bounds.
What is also looming on the horizon is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that will be the ultimate decider on how states may regulate firearms. One of these cases may very well break through to the high court, and that will be a closely watched and far-reaching decision.
As for New Jersey, attorney Daniel Schmutter presented the plaintiffs’ case for the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, and others.
He called it a “major victory for the Second Amendment. The judge enjoined huge portions of the law and recognized the supreme significance and importance of the fundamental right to bear arms.”
One of the plaintiffs, Scott Bach of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, noted that the law was a “bad idea to begin with.” He said lawmakers and the governor conducted an exercise in “angry fist-shaking” after the high court’s Bruen decision.
Instead of going after law-abiding gun owners, Bach said the governor should be asking if the state has “better ways to affect public policy, like severely punishing violent criminals instead of waging a war on the gun rights of law-abiding, honest citizens who are trained and vetted.”
Gov. Phil Murphy (D) of course disagreed, and his spokesperson called the decision “yet another misguided and erroneous ruling.”
Tyler Jones continued, saying “this poorly reasoned decision sends exactly the wrong message as our nation confronts another devastating wave of mass shootings that have taken the lives of many across our country, including children.”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) echoed that sentiment. He asserted that he plans to appeal the ruling and called it “devastating for public safety.”
Despite their misgivings, this latest ruling is correct in most aspects.
Supreme Court decisions are not suggestions that states may choose to ignore on a whim. Rather, they are the final word on the Constitution and laws duly passed by Congress. If gun control zealots want to legitimately change the nation’s approach to firearm regulation, there are established means to do so.
Ignoring the Constitution and the Supreme Court is not one of them.
