Criminal Law Blog

Judge Bumb concluded with the following: Lastly, at oral argument, this Court specifically pressed the State whether it had empirical evidence to suggest that concealed carry permit holders are responsible for gun crimes or an increase in gun crimes in New Jersey,...

The District Court continued: Finally, as discussed above, see supra Section III.A, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ credible fear of prosecution for violating one of the challenged restrictions constitutes irreparable injury. [See Koons Decl. ¶ 12; Gaudio Decl. ⁋ 15;...

The Court finds that the challenged provisions have chilled Plaintiffs’ reasonable exercise of their Second Amendment right. For example, because Mr. Koons regularly meets for breakfast at restaurants that occasionally have liquor licenses, he now leaves his firearm...

Judge Bumb continued: In weighing requests for injunctive relief post-Bruen, other courts have adopted the same conclusion and found similar Second Amendment deprivations to constitute irreparable injury. See, e.g., Spencer v. Nigrelli, 2022 WL 17985966, at *13...

The District Court continued: The Court next addresses whether Plaintiffs are likely to experience irreparable injury if the Temporary Restraining Order is not issued. Finding the constitutional deprivations alleged to be irreparable by their very nature, the Court...

Finally, the Court has yet another constitutional concern in addition to the above challenges that the individual Plaintiffs raise. The below scenario posed by the Court at oral argument demonstrates the cumulative effect of the legislation: to make it so unwieldy and...

Judge Bumb continued: Thus, not only does the statute say nothing about the restriction on carrying firearms in a vehicle, but it does suggest that if there is a carrying it should not be concealed. Nor does the other statute cited in the State’s Brief from Tennessee...

Judge Bumb continued: And while the Supreme Court recognized that some modern-day regulations may have been unimaginable at the time of our Nation’s Founding, that still does not excuse the duty of this Court to engage in a historical inquiry that involves reasoning...

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...

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...