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 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 […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 23)
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 […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 22)
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 […]
Permits to Carry and Sensitive Places (Part 21)
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 […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 126
- Next Page »