The District Court continued: Because they are being irreparably harmed each day that the unconstitutional legislation remains in effect, Plaintiffs ask this Court to immediately, temporarily, preliminarily, and ultimately, permanently restrain Defendants’ enforcement of these challenged provisions. The Individual Plaintiffs In support of their request, the three individual Plaintiffs have submitted sworn declarations. [Docket Nos. 10 (Decl. of Ronald Koons), 11 (Decl. of Nicholas Gaudio), 12 (Decl. of Jeffrey Muller).] Plaintiff Koons, a retired U.S. Air Force member, former official of the Federal Aviation Association, and a pastor at a church in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, swears in his Declaration that he regularly carried a handgun while driving in a car or doing business at a number of private businesses. [Docket No. 10 ⁋⁋ 3, 4, 5, 9.]
In another case filed on the same day as the present action, Siegel, et al. v. Platkin, et al., Civ. No. 22-07463 (KMW/AMD), certain plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of many other provisions of Chapter 131 governing firearm restrictions in New Jersey. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the present case raises a distinct and separate issue regarding only whether certain enumerated locations constitute constitutionally permissible “sensitive places” where handguns may be prohibited even by permitted carriers and not other constitutional attacks on the new law. [See Docket No. 16, at 1.]
Now that the law is in effect, he avers, he has stopped carrying a gun “during the normal course of [his] life” because the “‘sensitive places’ are so extensive, and the penalties are so great for violating them, it [is] too much of a risk to take.” [Id. ⁋ 12.] As to the private property legislation, Plaintiff Koons avers that the majority of places where he transacts business “have never expressed an opinion about whether they want firearms on premises. Since [he] lack[s] express consent, [he] would not be able to carry there.” [Id. ⁋ 13.]
Koons and the other named plaintiffs were likely hand-picked as ideal individuals to use for this case. Their impressive backgrounds make the legislation at issue seem that much more unreasonable.
