The District Court continued: No party disputes here that private property owners in New Jersey—and across the country for that matter—have long had the right to exclude firearms from their properties. As discussed above, New Jersey’s attempt to craft how private property owners communicate the word “no” works, in effect, to deter a law-abiding citizen […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 32)
The District Court continued: Also, at oral argument the State attempted to minimize the plain language of the legislation by suggesting that the only real injury to the gun owner is “having to ask for permission.” [Id. at 67.] Again, Defendants miss the mark. Putting aside how a gun owner goes about asking the question […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 31)
Judge Bumb continued: Defendants next attempt to defend the legislation by contending that the legislation simply “regulates . . . how property owners communicate their right to exclude.” [Tr. at 58.] Defendants also argue that nothing in Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that the Second Amendment took away a state’s ability to regulate property rights. [Def. […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 30)
The District Court continued: Just as in the hunting context, the burden under the criminal trespass statute is not on the unsuspecting actor, but on the landowner to indicate to others not to trespass. The foregoing notwithstanding, Defendants point to others states that have required a property owner’s consent to make their presumption point. Specifically, […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 29)
Judge Bumb continued: The Louisiana law appears historically inconsistent and unconstitutional, and in any event, it is but one example. The Court should not stake its “interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single State.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2153. Additionally, the lack of other examples in the […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 28)
The District Court continued: Nor can this Court find such distinction made by the Court in Heller or Bruen, as Defendants argue. Indeed, the historical evidence suggests otherwise and Defendants’ insistence that no such presumption exists because a private property owner has the right to exclude firearms from his property misses the point. 17 [State’s […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 27)
The District Court continued: 4. Subpart 24 – Private Property (Unless Indicated Otherwise by Owner) Subpart 24 of the statute deals with private property, which is defined as: Private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 26)
Judge Bumb continued: A similar flaw exists with respect to the Missouri statute cited by Defendants. Mo. Rev. Stat. 1879, at 224 (§ 1274). [Id., Ex. 10.] Although the 1879 Missouri law prohibited concealed weapons in “any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose,” the statute was explicit that the statute did […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 25)
The District Court continued: 3. Subpart 17 – Entertainment Facilities As an initial impression, subpart 17 of the legislation is exceptionally broad, which makes it is a criminal offense to carry handguns in “a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 24)
Judge Bumb continued: 2. Subpart 15 – Bars, Restaurants, and Where Alcohol is Served bans handguns in “a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises.” 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 7(a). First, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 131
- Next Page »