Judge Bumb continued: In their submissions, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the “sensitive places” and vehicle carry restrictions both carve out exemptions for certain persons (law enforcement, members of the Armed Forces, airport security officers, arson investigators, nuclear site guards, etc.). [Id. at 89 (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6).] They do not challenge those carve-outs. However, Plaintiffs contend that the only exemption the law gives for an ordinary, law-abiding, private citizen is authorization to “store a handgun or ammunition within a locked lock box and out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area.” 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 7(c)(2). A holder of a valid and lawfully issued permit to carry can “transport a concealed handgun in the immediate area surrounding [his] vehicle within a prohibited parking lot for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving the handgun within a locked lock box in the vehicle’s trunk or other place inside the vehicle that is out of plain view,” and can “transport a concealed handgun between a vehicle parked within a prohibited parking lot area and a place other than a prohibited place . . . provided that the person immediately leaves the parking lot area and does not enter into or on the grounds of the prohibited place with the handgun.” [Id. at § 7(c)(3)-(4).]
Again, although Plaintiffs do not concede the constitutionality of any of the chapter’s other “sensitive place” designations, [Pls.’ Br. at 10.], they only challenge the foregoing subparts because they “all satisfy three essential criteria.” [Id.] Specifically, that these new regulations are: “(1) plainly unconstitutional; (2) do not depend on other legislative acts, such as the enactment of a local ordinance or a state regulation; and (3) substantially interfere with a law-abiding citizen’s ability to carry a handgun for the purpose of protection.” [Id. at 11.]
We can anticipate that some communities will attempt to enact local ordinances to undermine this decision just as the New Jersey Governor and legislatures attempted to undermine the Bruen decision with the enactment of the unconstitutional laws at issue. With firearms laws already being numerous and convoluted, we can expect a lot of parallel litigation while law enforcement and citizens with permits-to-carry are let without clear guidance and ever-changing laws to enforce and obey.
