The District Court continued: However, it is this type of deference seeking that the Supreme Court has cautioned federal courts to avoid. It is not the role of this Court to either pass judgment (i.e., “make difficult empirical judgments”) on the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions or to defer to the intent of the […]

Judge Bumb continued: Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive place” law. In their view, “sensitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typically congregate […]

The District Court continued: The Bruen Court also emphasized the important balance that District Courts must strike when considering statutes that plainly implicate the Second Amendment: analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not “uphold every modern law that remotely […]

The Court continued: The Second Amendment ‘is the very product of an interest balancing by the people’ and it ‘surely elevates above all other interests the right of law- abiding responsible citizens to use arms’ for self-defense . . . It Is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference. […]

Judge Bumb continued: By making “the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller more explicit,” the Bruen Court clarified that: the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The Government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it […]

The District court continued: The Third Circuit has also made clear that “preliminary injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy’ and ‘should be granted only in limited circumstances.’” Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, […]

Like Plaintiff Gaudio, Plaintiff Muller is unable to protect himself while in a car and is concerned that loading and unloading a gun when getting into and out of a car as the legislation requires would cause “someone who saw him loading or unloading his gun to call the police.” In response, Defendants first argue […]

Judge Bumb continued: Plaintiff Gaudio, a systems engineer for Lockheed Martin with a United States Department of Defense Top Secret security clearance, avers in his Declaration that he began carrying a handgun on a regular basis after he received his permit to carry a firearm. [Docket No. 11 ⁋⁋ 3, 4.] However, as a result […]

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. […]

Judge Bumb continued: In their submissions, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the “sensitive places” and vehicle carry restrictions both carve out exemptions for certain persons (law enforcement, members of the Armed Forces, airport security officers, arson investigators, nuclear site guards, etc.). [Id. at 89 (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6).] They do not challenge those carve-outs. However, Plaintiffs contend that […]