The state of New Jersey is one of several that decided to take a mile instead of the inch that the Supreme Court gave them with its discussion of "sensitive places."
The basic idea of such places is that there are a handful of locations that are so sensitive that the Second Amendment doesn't cover, such as jails, courthouses, etc.
The problem is that some states decided to create so many "sensitive places" that it's virtually impossible to carry a firearm anywhere in the state, and yes, one of those is New Jersey.
As the Court didn't explicitly rule what was and wasn't sensitive, we're having to clean that up in the courts, and the 2A groups challenging the "gun-free zones" are taking the next step in its fight to clean up New Jersey's idiotic rules.
From a Second Amendment Foundation press release:
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a petition for en banc review with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in SAF’s lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” firearms carry restrictions.
The case, Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, challenges the law New Jersey enacted in response to the 2022 landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision, which creates multiple overlapping categories of so-called “sensitive places” where even those with a concealed carry permit are prohibited from carrying a firearm. This patchwork of restrictions created by the challenged law encompasses nearly every square inch of the state and was passed with the express intent of extinguishing the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
In September, SAF secured a partial victory in the case when a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for the carry of loaded, operable firearms in private vehicles and carry on private property open to the public without the owners express consent or signage. That panel decision did, however, uphold carry bans on public transportation, in public libraries and museums, places where alcohol is served and in entertainment venues.
“Major elements of the panel decision run contrary to both Third Circuit and Supreme Court law in ways which demand review by the entire Third Circuit,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “By deriving overly broad generalizations to define what a ‘sensitive place’ actually is under the law, the panel decision improperly bars New Jersey residents from exercising their rights in many of the types of places people go during the course of normal life in a way entirely inconsistent with the demands of the Supreme Court.”
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.
“After Bruen forced New Jersey to finally start issuing carry permits to its residents after decades of constitutional abuse, the state’s lawmakers responded by simply drawing a big circle around the entire state and calling it a ‘sensitive place’ where even permitted carry is banned,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF’s membership and our attorneys see this bad faith law for exactly what it is: A cynical attempt by an anti-gun legislature to waste taxpayer money trying novel approach after novel approach to ban constitutionally protected conduct.”
And that last paragraph with Gottlieb's comments is critical.
See, Justice Clarence Thomas said explicitly that New York couldn't just declare the island of Manhattan as a sensitive place and call it done. What states have done instead, though, is create too many rules that they've virtually done the same thing, without actually laying it out explicitly. They think this will somehow shield them.
But, in fact, they've essentially done just that.
You can carry, theoretically, but you can't do anything or go anywhere while doing so, at least as the law currently stands. That's essentially the same thing as what the Court said you couldn't do, as Gottlieb noted.
The more places where public carry is restricted, the more that the big circle around the state is amplified. It's just a simple fact, and including things like public transportation is a big part of that. Not everyone has their own car, after all, and to say that if you use public transportation--something that many may be forced to do in part because of state requirements for driving--you do not get to enjoy your Second Amendment rights is absolute nonsense.
Let's not forget what happened on Charlotte, North Carolina's public transit system. There's a legitimate reason for people to want to carry a firearm on public transportation.
My hope is that the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the other Second Amendment groups are victorious in this, because New Jersey's anti-gun regulations have long been a sore spot for me, personally, and I don't even live there.
When I've joked with our own John Petrolino that he needs to move to a freer state like Massachusetts or Illinois, and there was some truth to them being freer, at least at the time, then you know the state has lost its way. John stays to keep up the good fight, of course, and I applaud him for that, but it's still just a sad state of affairs that there's still a fight like that to be had.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member