Fed Judge On NJ Gun Law “plainly unconstitutional”, Grants Prelim. Injunction Against State

Governor Phil Murphy
Governor Phil Murphy

A federal judge in New Jersey on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction in part against certain tenets in the Garden State’s revised gun permit law, Chapter 131, chalking up a win for the Second Amendment Foundation and its lawsuit partners.

In her meticulously-researched 235-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb writes;

“The Constitution leaves the States some measures to combat handgun violence. But what the Second Amendment prohibits the States from doing, and what the State of New Jersey has done here with much of Chapter 131, is to ‘prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.’ That is plainly unconstitutional.

“Bruen required the State to bring its firearm laws in compliance with the Second Amendment,” Judge Bumb adds. “Chapter 131 was the State’s response, but it went too far, becoming the kind of law that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have warned against since it ‘disarm[s] only those who are not inclined or determined to commit crimes [and] worsen[s] the plight of the assaulted, but improve[s] those of the assailants.’”

SAF is joined in this case by the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey Muller and Ronald Koons, the latter for whom the case, Koons v. Platkin, is named. Attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y represents them.

“Judge Bumb’s ruling clearly recognizes the issues we raised with New Jersey’s restrictive gun law, and she’s fired a legal shot across the state’s bow,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When New Jersey passed Chapter 131, it did away with the ‘justifiable need’ requirement, but replaced it with an equally egregious ‘sensitive places’ restriction to effectively prohibit carrying a legally-licensed handgun anywhere in the state. That just doesn’t pass the smell test.”

Adam Kraut, SAF’s executive director and a practicing attorney, agreed, stating, “Today’s order granting our preliminary injunction against the State of New Jersey’s anti-carry law reaffirms that the rule of law is alive and well. After the Supreme Court decided Bruen last summer, the State of New Jersey enacted a series of restrictions that were wholly incompatible with the Constitution and disregarded the Supreme Court’s directive. It is unfortunate that a lawsuit was required in order to force the State to respect its residents constitutional right to bear arms. We look forward to continuing to litigate these issues in New Jersey, and across the nation, to ensure constitutional rights are not meaningless words on paper.”

Koons v. Platkin ~ Fed. Judge Grants Prelim. Injunction Against Tenets Of NJ Gun Law


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control

17 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Colt

The States should be forced to pay for illegal laws.. If you or I did something illegal to the State, I guarantee your, sweet bippy, they’d fine and sue your ass into eternity..

When the states do it.. nothing is done except waste your tax dollars… somehow, there needs to be consequences for this.

Cappy

I may have missed something here, but the judge actually appears to make some sense.

JH

The same play California is making.

RichDD

Now there needs to be action for those of us who can’t afford the $200.00+ to get our CCW. Another tactic to stop the poor from getting their CCW.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the people of color in the big cities that elect these fools the poor ones??

Last edited 2 years ago by RichDD
Laddyboy

WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE FRIVOLOUS COURT CASES BROUGHT BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMUNIST PARTY? These “politicians” who are doing these ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL “laws” MUST BEAR THE ENTIRE LAWYER AND COURT FINANCIAL COSTS for this NONSENSICAL BEHAVIOR!!!

Wass

Hopefully, there’s a bit of light at the end of the tunnel. Kudos to SAF.