Judge Blocks New Jersey Ban on Guns at Beaches, Casinos

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Harrys

    Short Round
    Jul 12, 2014
    3,423
    SOMD
    Thomson/Reuters
    30 January 2023


    A federal judge on Monday blocked New Jersey's recently enacted bans on carrying guns at beaches or casinos, though she left in place other restrictions passed by the state in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

    The order from U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Camden, New Jersey, came in response to a lawsuit brought by seven people and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs challenging parts of a law signed by Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy in December.

    "This marks the beginning of the end for Governor Murphy's blatantly unconstitutional new carry law, which is going down in flames," said Scott Bach, executive director of the association, in a statement.

    "We look forward to being able to appeal the ruling and are confident that it will be reversed," said Tyler Jones, a spokesperson for Murphy.

    Bumb three weeks ago blocked other parts of the law in a similar lawsuit brought by different plaintiffs. Those measures included bans on carrying guns in public libraries, museums, bars and restaurants and on private property without the owner's explicit permission, as well as transporting loaded guns in vehicles.

    Other parts of the law, including measures tightening gun licensing requirements and handgun safety rules, remain in effect.

    The rulings in both cases are temporary restraining orders, which will prevent the bans from being enforced while the lawsuits go forward. They are not final judgments.

    Both lawsuits argue that the state's new restrictions violate the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    The law was passed in response to the Supreme Court's decision in June that the U.S. Constitution protects individuals' right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, striking down a New York law governing gun licenses.

    The high court's decision left open the possibility for states to restrict guns in "sensitive places" but said any restrictions must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation. Bumb found that the challenged restrictions in both cases did not fit in that tradition.




    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jersey-guns/2023/01/30/id/1106515/
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan
    Last edited:

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,909
    AA County
    This is what "winning" feels like.

    A slow, piece-by-piece, dissection of the unconstitutional laws.

    Slow and deliberate. I'm liking it.

    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
     

    Garet Jax

    Not ignored by gamer_jim
    MDS Supporter
    May 5, 2011
    6,696
    Bel Air
    This is what "winning" feels like.

    A slow, piece-by-piece, dissection of the unconstitutional laws.

    Slow and deliberate. I'm liking it.

    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

    You and I have a different opinion on winning. While I agree Bruen was the single most important 2A win in a very long time (arguably since 2A was originally put in place in 1791), we are not winning, yet. If we were, there would be no SB1 that is almost certainly going to pass the senate and the house and be made into law. The fact that NJ and NY have to fight new laws is my point. Every time we have to go to court, it costs us time, energy and money (doubly so since our taxes pay for the salaries of the antis who fight us in court).

    If SB1 passes and becomes law, us winning would be 4C or SCOTUS stepping in well before Oct 1st, 2023 to kill the bill. From what those in the know tell me, that isn't how they operate.
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,909
    AA County
    Read my sig line.

    We had let the destruction of the 2A continue for most of the last century. Now, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. It will pick up speed as each of these cases falls in our favor. We are still in the transitional period, when the legislators are throwing everything, including the bathroom sink, at keeping the status quo. If you can't see the difference in the last five years, you're not paying attention.

    Do I wish it would happen faster?
    Absolutely.
    Will I die before the 2A is fully restored?
    Probably.
    Am I better off today than 5 years ago?
    Slightly, with much more optimism!

    I've been lobbing for these changes for over 10 years. I've been funding pro 2A organizations for longer. It wasn't until gun owners started putting their time and money towards the effort that change began to take place.

    My only regret is not joining the fight earlier!



    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan

    This sucks for any judge to "Order"! id. § 2C:58-4.6(b)(1) (prohibition on functional firearms in vehicles)

    How is this possible? Have a carry permit and prohibition to carry loaded firearm in the car.
    That's just dumb- and not a logical conclusion in keeping with Bruen.
    Bruen opinion quoted
    the “‘normal and ordinary’” meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. 554 U. S., at 576–577, 578.
    That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—
    “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right
    to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”
     
    Last edited:

    Phoenix_1295

    Creature of Life and Fire
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 6, 2010
    1,664
    MD
    This sucks for any judge to "Order"! id. § 2C:58-4.6(b)(1) (prohibition on functional firearms in vehicles)

    The judge is not ordering prohibition of carry in vehicles. The judge’s order is in favor of the plaintiffs. As result of the injunction, you can carry in vehicles.

    The judge has ordered that the specified provisions can not be enforced.
     
    Last edited:

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan
    The judge is not ordering prohibition of carry in vehicles. The judge’s order is in favor of the plaintiffs. As result of the injunction, you can carry in vehicles.

    The judge has ordered that the specified provisions can not be enforced.

    I HEAR YOU, but that is not what is said.

    Vehicles. A carry permit holder may not have a functional firearm in her own automobile. Instead, the handgun must be unloaded and stored in a locked case or in the trunk. This is a huge infringement on the right to bear arms for self-defense and is contrary to colonial tradition of protecting arms carry while traveling. The 1876 Iowa law against shooting at trains is hardly analogous. Two 1871 municipal laws against carrying gunpowder in vehicles were fire safety measure addressing the volatile blackpowder of the time. There are not such risks for modern metal-cased ammunition.
     

    Phoenix_1295

    Creature of Life and Fire
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 6, 2010
    1,664
    MD
    I HEAR YOU, but that is not what is said.

    Vehicles. A carry permit holder may not have a functional firearm in her own automobile. Instead, the handgun must be unloaded and stored in a locked case or in the trunk. This is a huge infringement on the right to bear arms for self-defense and is contrary to colonial tradition of protecting arms carry while traveling. The 1876 Iowa law against shooting at trains is hardly analogous. Two 1871 municipal laws against carrying gunpowder in vehicles were fire safety measure addressing the volatile blackpowder of the time. There are not such risks for modern metal-cased ammunition.

    Yes, that is the law, but the PI prohibits it from being enforced.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,427
    Messages
    7,281,296
    Members
    33,452
    Latest member
    J_Gunslinger

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom