After the historic NYSRPA v. Bruen decision was handed down last June, some jurisdictions went to work subverting Second Amendment rights, regardless of the high court’s order. They enacted Bruen response bills, erecting new roadblocks to lawful concealed carry. New York most famously passed and enacted the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” and right next door, New Jersey’s lesser-known “carry killer” bill became law in December of 2022.
With the prospect of citizens of the Garden State finally being repatriated with their right to bear arms, all three branches of New Jersey’s government conspired to make legally carrying a firearm as difficult and expensive as possible. Shortly after the law went into effect, however, US District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb issued a temporary restraining order, and this week she handed down a preliminary injunction blocking important portions of the law.
Two cases — Siegel and Koons — challenged Assemblyman Joe Danielsen’s anti-gun A4769 law. The Siegel case involves several plaintiffs and is spearheaded by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, with attorney Daniel L. Schmutter at the helm. The Koons case also involves several plaintiffs and is lead by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, and New Jersey Second Amendment Society, with attorney David Jensen representing them.
The cases were consolidated and both attorneys delivered arguments in March, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for a preliminary injunction against many of the most restrictive provisions of the carry killer law. This week, Judge Bumb granted their wish.
New Jersey’s law created an extensive list of 25 so-called “sensitive locations” that made it a felony to be in possession of a firearm there. The legislature’s intent was obvious. At the behest of Governor Phil Murphy, they made carrying firearms impractical to the point that Assemblyman Brian Bergen famously noted during a hearing that people would only be able to legally carry a firearm while walking down the street.
Bergen further drew the analogy that if a person was to be walking their dog and went to clean up poop from someone’s lawn — private property — it would be a felony for carrying there without permission. The bill’s primary sponsor, Joe Danielsen – the second biggest jackass in New Jersey politics – noted that a felony charge would be appropriate under such a situation.
In addition to creating the list of no-go zones for carriers, Danielsen’s bill increased the price for pistol purchaser’s permits by more than 10 times, firearms identification cards by 20 times, and the cost of carry permits was tripled. The bill also banned gun ownership for people who received certain voluntary mental health assistance unless they got their records expunged.
The law also mandated that carriers obtain non-existent insurance policies providing up to $300,000.00 in damages, required people keep their firearms unloaded and cased in cars, required in-person interviews for getting a permit, and allowed issuing authority to use things like social media posts against applicants seeking to obtain a permit to carry.
US District Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s opinion this week clocks in at 235 pages and extensively picks apart each argument the state used to support the law. She noted what virtually everyone already knew…that most of the law, as written, is likely to be found unconstitutional in a post-Bruen world.
The preliminary injunction enjoins the law that blocked carry at these locations . . .
- Zoos
- Parks, beaches, recreation facility or area owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun-free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety
- Publicly owned or leased libraries or museums
- Bars or restaurants where alcohol is served, and any other sites or facilities where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises
- Privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facilities within this State, including but not limited to a theaters, stadiums, museums, arenas, racetracks or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held
- Casinos and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property
- Certain “health care facilities”
- Public locations being used for making motion pictures or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose
- Private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property – which is open to the public
- The order further enjoined the requirement that permit to carry holders obtain liability insurance, be subjected to in-person interviews by the police, and the functional firearms in their vehicles prohibition has been lifted.
Judge Bumb was adamant that playgrounds, regardless of location, still remain sensitive areas, and during the arguments in March she strongly stated “no guns in schools.”
On behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the following about the order:
“Judge Bumb’s ruling clearly recognizes the issues we raised with New Jersey’s restrictive gun law, and she’s fired a legal shot across the state’s bow. When New Jersey passed Chapter 131, it did away with the ‘justifiable need’ requirement, but replaced it with an equally egregious ‘sensitive places’ restriction to effectively prohibit carrying a legally-licensed handgun anywhere in the state. That just doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Adam Kraut, SAF’s executive director and a practicing attorney, agreed and stated:
“[The] order granting our preliminary injunction against the State of New Jersey’s anti-carry law reaffirms that the rule of law is alive and well. After the Supreme Court decided Bruen last summer, the State of New Jersey enacted a series of restrictions that were wholly incompatible with the Constitution and disregarded the Supreme Court’s directive. It is unfortunate that a lawsuit was required in order to force the State to respect its residents’ constitutional right to bear arms. We look forward to continuing to litigate these issues in New Jersey, and across the nation, to ensure constitutional rights are not meaningless words on paper.”
Firearms Policy Coalition Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack spoke about the order as well:
“FPC is thrilled with [the] outcome. New Jersey lawmakers appear intent on continuing to thumb their noses at the mandates of the Constitution but today the Court issued a resounding ‘No.’”
We reached out to David Jensen, the lead attorney on the Koons case about the injunction and he said, “We’re pleased with the result, and we appreciate the Court’s careful and thorough analysis. It was (and still is) tragic that the New Jersey legislature opted to declare war on law-abiding gun owners and the right to bear arms, rather than taking the opportunity to do something constructive.”
Daniel L. Schmutter, the lead attorney for the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs’ Siegel case, told TTAG “We are very pleased that the Court recognizes the extreme degree by which the State is attempting to trample New Jerseyans’ fundamental constitutional rights.” Scott Bach, the Executive Director of ANJRPC, further expanded on Schmutter’s statement and observed . . .
“This represents a devastating blow to Governor Murphy’s law blocking legal self-defense. Instead of interfering with the carry rights of honest citizens, Murphy should instead focus on severely punishing violent criminals. Murphy’s blatantly unconstitutional new carry law will ultimately go down in flames for good.”
There’s a lot to the injunction and much to celebrate here. While this injunction didn’t hit every element on the gun owners’ wish list, it provides a path forward for what burdens must be met to see permanent injunctions against the remaining items being challenged.
The injunction is a huge win for Garden State Second Amendment supporters. While the state of New Jersey has already filed for an appeal, we remain hopeful that the Third Circuit Court won’t stay Bumb’s order. It’s an important step in restoring civil liberties here in the Land of 1000 Diners.
Sorry, not sorry.
Heller 1 and 2, Bruen permit balancing of interests (“sensitive places”, and “objective” standards for deciding who may be permitted to own and carry a firearm). Regards the NJ injunction, a “sort of” victory is yet another loss (rather, a continuing loss).
Sam, How do you figure? Please explain?
New Jersey may as well be Illannoy!
For now, see how it looks in a year for both and more
@safe, yes it is going to be an interesting time for POTG the next few years.
Nothing new just more of the same old, same old you Defend The 2A For Me courtroom drama. Gun Control has always and will always benefit no one but criminals, tyrants and the like…Sad to see an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide receive standing in any American court…Standing is what happens when an uniformed public sees Gun Control as sugar and spice and everything nice.
Speaking of nothing new………
There are some good things there but as long as they leave gun free zones people will die from shootings. they need to get rid of gun free zones completely otherwise the bad guys are going to know where free pickings are.
The only gun free zones should be federal buildings.
YHes, OK, if yuo must. BUT any such zone MUST establish professional armed security, AND facility for armed citizens who wish to enter to secure their firearms whilst inside. Tjat way no one has to worry about the long and dangerous trip from in street parking, or a parking garage, to tje entrance to the federal facility. It makes me furious that to walk into a Social Secirity Administration office for a mandaatory interview I must leave my protection in the car, or worse yet, unsecured on my bicycle. But the dwwb at the door is an armed federal agent who enforces the stupid no guns zone at the door. No state office does this, why are FedGov so “spayshull”?
When they declare a “gun free zone” they are only thinking iof their own false security, never ours. What about the trip from home TO the federalfacility? Oh we don’t care about that… of course you don’t. But I STILL have that right to protection wherever I am.
Theres a lot of old fat WHITE Trump supporters that go into those social security buildings.
ticking time bombs should not be armed.
What chaps my ass is that as a thoroughly checked CCW holder I can’t even take my pocket knife into the county court house to renew my license. There was no DMV office in my sparse part of the county until years after I moved there.
@jethro the janitor: “The only gun free zones should be federal buildings.”
Why? What is the specific attribute of federal buildings that you believe justifies such a designation?
Dark Humor. Since Gun Free Zones are magnates for mass killers why not get some use out of them. Fed.gov is the biggest impediment to freedom there is.
I’m now embarrassed, @jethro, and I apologize for missing your dark humor which in hindsight is quite apparent.
federal buildings have armed security..
It’s ridiculous that we have to spend million to undo every illegal infringement on our rights when one ruling from the not so supreme court stating that all gun control laws are unconstitutional would put an end to it.. Always bailing wire and duct tape fixes !
It took the better part of a century for grabbers to get to where they were pre Heller. Multiple levels of government, lawmakers, regulatory agencies, and industry were required to curtail our rights at the cost of God only knows what. Whether we and our ancestors were asleep at the switch is a question for another time as it is more critical that we start pushing back against the tide they tried to drown us in. Basically this is a long term generational struggle that we need to be ready to fight so long as the sky is blue.
Not even in the ‘GunShine State’ of Florida can we carry in bars (with alcohol revenue over 50 percent of the establishment in total).
That’s a helluva win thanks to Judge Renee Marie Bumb! 🙂
No way in hell will they ever willingly recognize my carry in that state… 🙁
None of the bars around here have metal detectors at their doors. Is it different in your county?
None that I’m aware of down here in Polk, but I also haven’t been in bars for the purpose of getting slammed in a number of years, so I’m not exactly an authority on the subject.
It’s cool though that NJ drinkers, unlike those in Florida can get drunk if they want and carry where they drink… 🙂
“whoosh”
How would anyone know if you went into a bar while carrying concealed?
Not so erudite now, are we? (I knew I’d get the chance to work that word into a response … someday.)
“whoosh”
Not the first time for me, and most likely damn sure won’t be the last… 🙂
This is just an injunction for the time being, I’m not sure they are actually issuing carry permits, but heaven help you if you actually use a legally carried weapon to defend yourself in this state, PRoNJ. We don’t have castle doctrine, we have duty to retreat in your own home. Which room do I retreat to? The one with my wife or my daughter? Now try to use that tool to defend yourself just walking down the street. I mean this is the state that went after a guy who shot a bear in his house, but the judge threw that crap out.
Simple Jack: Technically NJ does have Castle Doctrine, but you will be arrested for using it according to the letter of the law, then spend millions defending your rights. Of course you have to ask politely for the “person” to please leave your house (from the law text) “the use of force is justifiable only if the actor first requests the person
against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the
property, unless the actor reasonably believes that (a) such request would
be useless; (b) it would be dangerous to himself or another to make the
request”
https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/charges/justif006.pdf#:~:text=N.J.S.A.%202C%3A3-6%28a%29%20and%20%28c%29%20provide%20that%20the%20justification,provisions%20of%20this%20section%20and%20of%20section%202C%3A3-9.%E2%80%9D
Thank you to president Trump and his pics for the court system in this country. And yes I know he didn’t legalize your drugs. Just moved to the west coast of the United States. You will be safe there doing everything you want in public. Urinating and defecating at the same time while smoking marijuana or crystal meth in public.
fyi
In 2018 president Trump did legalize marijuana. I even met pot growers here in Kentucky who had moved here from California. Because the business and tax climate for growing marijuana sucks in California.
The Right To Wear Shoes Shall Not Be Infringed.
if there was a lot of criminals wearing shoes stomping their victims the left would be wanting to ban shoes and still do nothing about the criminals, even if the right did say that.
oh wait… there are a lot of criminals wearing shoes that do stomp their victims. its a favorite thing to do with gangs attacking victims.
I thought possums went barefoot?
“I thought possums went barefoot?”
Bare paw? 🙂
Flip Flops.
Sneakers………..
Now I have this mental image of the Possum wearing flip-flops, dragging his gat with a piece of string…
possum,
I hope you know we’re all just pokin’ fun – at least among most of us, you are a cherished contributor to this site.
And I drove an F-150 for 20+ years (no disrespect intended to your fallen comrades/family members).
“The Right To Wear Shoes Shall Not Be Infringed.”
No right is absolute.
Wearing shoes in sensitive places can be restricted.
Like at the airport.
“Like at the airport.”
Indeed. Or anywhere else a legislature gets in its mind. Of course, banning the wearing of shoes in sensitive places doesn’t have an analog in 1791. But, that wouldn’t stop the Dims.
Sam,
“But, that wouldn’t stop the Dims.”
With all due respect, two questions:
1. Are the Republicans qualitatively better, or only quantitatively better?; and
2. If you some up with something that WOULD stop the Dims, could you please share it with us??
Just askin’, for a friend.
Wearing shoes in sensitive places would seem to be mandatory due to odor.
Wear or not wear that is the question!
“Wear or not wear that is the question!”
Center field?
I believe I’ve read that hear in Kansas a constitutional state that if your trespassing on private property with a gunm it’s a felony, felony means no gunms. It’s all a trap.
The right to bear arms Shall not be Infringed.
But it is with a plethora of hidden laws.
Booze is legal unless your drunk and not hiding at home. And even then,Cant get drunk and play your music loud, when the man shows up trouble starts cause he smells booze.
America is a real Free country.
You have the freedom to fck up so the system gets its money.
Cant do this ,cant do that, sign sign everywhere a sign.
When worse comes to worse and you just cant find a job nowhere there is always a job opening at the Department of Corrections.
Law enforcement and its system just hates law abiding citizens, no money there. They like criminals and miscreants, repeat offenders.
What law enforcement wont do is arrest a self proclaimed child molester and filmed pedophile controlling a covert army of infiltrators with intentions of destroying a country.
No they will jail and nail the Mom packing a roscoe to protect her kids.
Those types pose a threat to the security of America.
Dairy farms in Saudia Arabia need hay, please donate your land, water and resources to help them.
They need milk, we need crude oil(?) Why, well 3 years ago we exported all of our crude oil so now we dont got none and have to kiss foreign countries asses to get theirs.
Thank gawd for Joe Biden, Trump would have had it all fcked up, whew , we missed a bullet on that election, good thing it was rigged.
Most times the American citizen doesn’t know what’s good for them, thankfully our government does.
MCGA
JRB in 2024
possum,
If ever I read a campaign speech, that was it!! You planning something?
BTW, I agree.
Can you imagine the Possum on the Presidential podium, nose whiskers twitching, giving that speech? 🙂
His first EO would likely be a ban on F150s.
possum trespassing on someone else’s property with a firearm is STUPID and should be illegal.
There’s a lot of buggering in Jersey, my dear Watson!
Lol, there’s a lot of buggery too… I need an exit strategy.
when laws effect law abiding citizens more then the law breaking criminals then the laws are not just and should be repealed.
So in other words, this Judge believes that mom’s and dad’s should not be armed when dropping their kids off at school or picking them up. Given the context of travesties such as Uvalde, Mandalay Bay and many other mass shooting events where sworn police officers literally cowered in the parking lot or in a hallway outside of a classroom door while they waited for the shooting to stop, this is insane. The people most likely to move adroitly to protect children are their parents.
“So in other words, this Judge believes that mom’s and dad’s should not be armed when dropping their kids off at school or picking them up.”
*Rolling eyes*
Could that ruling have been better?
Yes.
It’s also light-years better than what they had before.
Ever heard the old saying “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”?
By the tone of your comment, you make it sound like the ruling was deeply flawed. In no way was it that bad. The POG in NJ are rightfully leaping for joy today… 🙁
There are a number of people in this country that have lived so long under illegal laws that making things legal seems unnatural. It’s why they see the judges of SCOTUS to be illegitimate. Well, that and the notion that nothing Trump did is legit. Which is part of the same thing. The Supreme Court will have to use their power to enforce the laws. Just making decisions will not be good enough.
“Private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property – which is open to the public”
Special kind of NJ stupid. If you choose to allow the public (or employees) in/on your private property then you allow them to bring their Constitutional Rights with them (specifically the 2nd).
@Lamp
“1. Are the Republicans qualitatively better, or only quantitatively better?”
Yes. See SCOTUS makeup.
“2. If you some up with something that WOULD stop the Dims, could you please share it with us??”
Short of armed conflict?
Comments are closed.