Criminal Law Blog

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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”...

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...