New Jersey town trying to pass Bruen-compliant gun control

(AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

The Bruen decision doesn’t leave a lot of room for gun control. However, it doesn’t go quite as far as I would have liked, either. After all, it does leave the door open for a small amount of anti-gun regulation.

One such example is the idea of “sensitive places.”

The Court made it clear that there were places that a government could declare as so sensitive that guns couldn’t be allowed. These are places like schools, courthouses, etc.

That crack in the door, though, has many looking to include as many places as “sensitive” as they think they can get away with.

In New Jersey, one town is trying to do just that.

The Borough Council last week proposed a measure that would cement strict gun carry laws in public places.

The ordinance introduced on Aug. 1 prohibits anyone from carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise, in public buildings, including borough and school spaces, except by law enforcement on official duty.

The ordinance, introduced with a unanimous vote, is scheduled for a public hearing and final vote at the council’s Sept. 6 meeting.

The ordinance comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that essentially deemed the concealed carry restrictions in New York unconstitutional.

The high court ruling, however, did indicate states can continue to prohibit guns in some locations like schools and government buildings.

“The Borough Council of Highland Park has heard from many residents who are concerned with the rising level of senseless gun violence in our country,” said Council President Phil George.

I honestly get that. Granted, indicators are that violent crime is actually down in 2022, but there’s still a perception and a local government is going to want to address that as best they can.

I get it.

However, this ain’t it, hoss.

The idea of restricting guns in certain places may be considered constitutional under Bruen, but it doesn’t actually accomplish any of the things proponents seem to believe it will.

Criminals will still carry firearms into such places. They don’t care about the law saying they can’t. I mean, they’re criminals. They only obey the laws they want to and when they want to. Why would these laws suddenly be different?

That’s why gun control has never worked and will never work. It’s predicated on the idea that these laws will be different from all the other laws criminals break coupled with no regard for just how it prevents law-abiding citizens from defending themselves.

The measures being considered by Highland Park are no different.

No, you might not need a gun in a borough building, but what about outside of that building?

And I wouldn’t bank on you not needing it inside the building, either, or has everyone forgotten about the massacre in a Virginia Beach municipal building? Are Highland Park’s buildings immune from such things? I wouldn’t count on it.

While I get Highland Park’s desire to “do something,” what they’re looking at are the precisely wrong things. Gun control doesn’t accomplish what they’re hoping for. They’d be better off looking elsewhere.