Of note, the State conceded at oral argument that the provision restricting functional firearms in vehicles did infringe in some sense the “immediate ability to have that firearm loaded and on you.” [Tr. at 83.] The Court appreciates the State’s candor, and finds that such conduct is clearly protected by the Second Amendment, which at its core protects the right to self-defense. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122.
As Plaintiffs lament, the challenged provisions force a person permitted to carry a firearm in New Jersey to “navigate a ‘veritable minefield.’” [Pls’. Br. at 12.] Their view is a legitimate one. The Court knows of no constitutional right that requires this much guesswork by individuals wanting to exercise such right.
Plaintiffs cannot decipher what constitutes a “sensitive place,” and so they have abandoned their constitutional right to bear arms out of fear of criminal penalty. Relatedly, Plaintiffs argue that these provisions sweep so broadly that the legislation “effectively shuts off most public areas from carrying for self-defense.” [Pls.’ Br. at 30.] In the final analysis, at some point on the line, when a constitutional right becomes so burdensome or unwieldy to exercise, it is, in effect, no longer a constitutional right. Plaintiffs have made a convincing case that this legislation has reached that point. While the State presses that it has legitimate societal reasons for its legislation, it bears repeating that this is an arena into which this Court cannot venture. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129 (“the Second Amendment does not permit . . . ‘judges to assess the cost and benefits of firearms restrictions’”) (citation omitted).
It is not the role of this Court to either defer to the Legislature or to pass judgment on the wisdom of the firearms restrictions. Accordingly, for this reason as well, Plaintiffs have met their burden in showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenges to the foregoing provisions.
The “inoperable” requirement for carrying firearms in the trunk of a vehicle may be the most ridiculous aspect of the legislation at issue. Judge Bumb did an excellent job illustrating its absurdities with her questions at oral argument.