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 concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden. In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, the […]

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 burdensome for a permit holder to exercise his constitutional right to carry a […]

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 provide historical evidence in support of the current […]

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 by analogy. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132 (“Much like we use […]

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 property owners communicate the word “no” works, in effect, to deter a law-abiding citizen […]

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 aside how a gun owner goes about asking the question […]

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. […]

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, […]

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 […]