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 […]

Judge Bumb continued: Next, Defendants contend that where the government is a proprietor of a library or museum, it has a right to exclude firearms. However, the provision does not limit libraries and museums to government-owned ones, and Defendants do not cite to any historical statutes that expressly or analogously prohibited firearms in museums and […]

Judge Bumb continued: Defendants do not quarrel with this proposition. Again, Defendants must be able to rebut the presumption that the challenged conduct is constitutionally protected by “demonstrating that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126. To reiterate, Defendants “may not simply posit that […]

The District Court continued: For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that at this stage of the proceeding the individual Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of standing. The Court therefore turns to the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – The State’s Historical Justification […]

Judge Bumb continued: Absent a concession by Defendants that they do not intend to enforce the newly enacted legislation, Plaintiffs have averred credible threats of prosecution. Indeed, as Plaintiffs point out, every indication is that the State of New Jersey intends to prosecute any violation of these laws to the fullest extent. [Docket No. 28 […]

The District Court continued: The Court need not get bogged down in knowing how frequently each Plaintiff checks books out of his local library or who is more of a movie-goer. Instead, Plaintiffs have shown an immediate threat if they were to resume carrying their handguns with them in public as they did prior to […]

The District Court continued: The Court notes, however, that the Supreme Court has cautioned that “the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds.”8 [Id.] Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs fail to substantiate or even allege concrete plans to imminently visit the places for which they challenge Chapter 131’s provisions. For example, with […]

Judge Bumb continued: At oral argument, the State conceded that Plaintiffs have shown a particularized injury, given that they each have valid permits to carry handguns and were generally permitted to do so in the challenged “sensitive places” prior to the enactment of the relevant provisions of Chapter 131. [Tr. at 18.] Instead, the State […]

The District Court continued: Plaintiffs implore this Court to consider the only reasonable conclusion from Defendants’ posturing: their dragging of feet is evidence that no such historical tradition and evidence exists. Perhaps. At this juncture, there is no bona fide basis for this Court to withhold its ruling because the State says it needs more […]

The District Court continued: See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133 (“analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”) In fact, […]