While the Bruen decision was good for gun rights overall, there was one problem with it. That was the allowance of "sensitive places" where guns can be prohibited.
The idea itself might not be the most objectionable, but the problem is that the limits on such places given in the Bruen decision are just short of naming an entire city or state sensitive. That leaves a lot of ground to cover, to be sure.
A lot of places seized on that, getting kind of stupid with the whole sensitive places thing. Unsurprisingly, New Jersey was one, and there was a challenge with their extensive list. Our own John Petrolino covered the fact that New Jersey didn't get their way in the case.
In a press release sent out on Wednesday, the Second Amendment Foundation celebrated their partial victory in the matter.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners a partial victory today in a case challenging New Jersey’s “Sensitive Places Law” but left in place carry restrictions for many public areas.
The case, Koons v. Platkin, challenges New Jersey law that create a series of “sensitive places” in which even permitted concealed carriers are prohibited from carrying their firearms. Those places create a patchwork of overlapping categories such as public gatherings, zoos, parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and more, intended to encompass nearly every square inch of the state.
In the partial victory, the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for some of these categories: youth sports events, private vehicles, public property and private property without the owners express consent. The Court also upheld the injunctions against a tax on the state’s carry permit, and a liability insurance mandate.
“Today, a panel of the Third Circuit concluded that ‘the People’ have the fundamental right to bear arms in public, with the minor caveat they simply can't do so where people assemble with others, eat and drink, conduct commerce, discuss opinions, seek amusement and recreation, learn, worship, travel on public transit, seek leisure or community, and anywhere children or vulnerable people are normally present,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And even then, in the remaining social wastelands leftover which the court grudgingly allows, one may only carry a firearm for self-defense if they have first secured the subjective endorsement of at least four ‘reputable’ persons. This treatment would not be tolerated in the context of any other constitutional right, and it should not be so here.”
SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and four private citizens.
“By upholding the numerous carry prohibitions in New Jersey, the Third Circuit continues to tie the hands of peaceable residents who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ruling flies in the face of the history and tradition of firearms regulation in the United States and we will continue to fight these draconian laws until all residents of New Jersey are unburdened.”
This was New Jersey's "carry killer" law, meant to make it such a burden to carry a firearm that people would simply decide not to fool with it. That was the intention, and the setback is extensive for the Garden State, as it should be.
The idea of telling people they can't carry, even with a permit, in their own vehicles is insane, as is claiming that people can't carry in and around public parks, zoos, and other public property in general.
Then we have the whole private property without express consent aspect, which is downright infuriating to me. No other right is presumed to be non-existent on private property without express consent like this. You're assumed to have free speech and freedom of religion, for example, until and unless the owner or proprietor tells you to stop voicing your opinion or praying or whatever. So to should it be with gun rights.
If you don't want guns on your property, that's your business, but a lot of people don't care enough one way or the other. They want customers and would rather not voice an opinion on a contentious issue. New Jersey decided they had to make a decision one way or the other, trusting that most would still stay silent and thereby side with the anti-gun position by default.
And again, this is to discourage people from exercising their rights.
Think about that for a moment. This is an individual right protected by the Constitution, and the state of New Jersey, among others, are actively trying to discourage people from exercising it. People are actively working to "encourage" people to ignore a basic, fundamental right. And this is tolerated.
Well, they got a setback.
No, the victory wasn't total, but it was big.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member