Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.
The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.
Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.
The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”
The Panel Ruling
In August, a divided three-judge panel struck down some parts of Chapter 131—including the insurance mandate and victim-fund fee—but upheld most of the “sensitive place” bans and left the four-reference rule intact. Writing for the majority, the panel likened New Jersey’s reference requirement to colonial-era “surety” and “going armed” laws that sought to prevent violence before it occurred.
Judge David Porter dissented, warning that the “cumulative burden” of Chapter 131 effectively nullifies the constitutional right to carry for self-defense.
The Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Filed October 8 by attorneys Paul Clement and Erin Murphy—the same team behind Bruen—the petition argues that the panel “got several of these exceptionally important issues exceptionally wrong.”
It states that the panel “blessed New Jersey’s effort to designate as ‘sensitive places’ nearly everywhere that ordinary human action occurs” and allowed the state to transform a “fundamental constitutional right into a mere privilege.”
The brief points out that the panel’s interpretation conflicts with both Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), which require modern gun regulations to match historical analogues in both “why and how.” The lawyers contend that forcing applicants to find four character witnesses “turns the presumption of liberty upside down” by denying carry rights unless citizens can disprove a default assumption that they are dangerous.
On the “sensitive places” issue, the petition warns that the panel’s approach “renders Bruen a dead letter” by allowing states to declare nearly any location gun-free—including parks, beaches, casinos, healthcare facilities, and public transit—contrary to the Supreme Court’s statement that only “relatively few” such places existed historically.
Why the Fight with NJ Matters
If the full Third Circuit agrees to rehear the case, it could redefine how lower courts apply Bruen’s historical-tradition test across multiple Second Amendment challenges now pending in the circuit. Other related cases—such as Association of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General and Suarez v. Commissioner, Pa. State Police—have been waiting for clarity on this very question.
For now, New Jersey’s restrictive carry zones remain in effect in most public spaces. But as the NRA emphasized in its press release, the fight is far from over: “The issues presented in this case are too important to allow the panel’s flawed decision to be the last word on the constitutionality of New Jersey’s outlier regime.”
We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Major Blow to NJ’s Anti-Gun Carry Laws
All infringements are BS but the one that especially gets me is the requirement for two signatures to vouch for you. How about, God forbid, I move to Portland which is commie/leftist/marxist central and I want a permit but cannot find a republican anywhere that will sign for me. Should I be denied my right for the carry permit privilege when I live in a leftist eutopia and cannot find someone to vouch for me. Hell no!!!!! This law, carry permit requirement laws and permit to purchase laws are all infringements and need to go the way of the do… Read more »
I’ll echo @musicman44mag. One thought reading the article, and previous other ones about this Bruen Tantrum law, is what if you [are unfortunate or desperate enough to] move to NJ and want to get a carry permit. I don’t think they accept 4 references from out of State or especially out of country (in the case you worked or lived overseas for a while.) And if you are not a gregarious person, how long might it take to gain the friendship of 4 like minded folk who trust you enough to vouch for you? In addition to all the other… Read more »