NJ's tricks to make sure gun owners can't carry guns is failing, just like NY's did

[dead0man]

Reason

After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last June, New Jersey responded the same way New York did: by making it easier to obtain a carry permit but much harder to use it. "Although an individual seeking to carry a handgun for self-defense is no longer required to show a 'justifiable need,'" U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb notes, "the State's expansive list of 'sensitive places' effectively prohibits the carrying of that handgun virtually everywhere in New Jersey." The message to gun owners, Bumb says, was pretty clear: "leave your Second Amendment rights and guns at home."

The preliminary injunction that Bumb issued yesterday, which follows a temporary restraining order that she granted in January, is the latest judicial rebuke of legislative attempts to defy the Supreme Court's June 23 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen while pretending to comply with it. New Jersey politicians, like their counterparts in New York, are discovering that federal judges are not inclined to approve that transparent end run.

<snip>

"Remarkably," she writes, "despite numerous opportunities afforded by this Court to hold evidentiary hearings involving the presentation of evidence, the State called no witnesses. And despite assurances by the State that it would present sufficient historical evidence as required by Bruen to support each aspect of the new legislation, the State failed to do so."

New Jersey's lawyers instead offered the same "social science studies" that state legislators cited when they enacted sweeping restrictions on public possession of firearms. Bumb deems that evidence "inapposite" because the state's regulations are "aimed primarily" not at "those who unlawfully possess firearms" but at "law-abiding, responsible citizens who satisfy detailed background and training requirements and whom the State seeks to prevent from carrying a firearm in public for self-defense."

<snip>

In response to Bruen, New Jersey legislators eliminated the state's "justifiable need" requirement for carry permits. But they simultaneously decreed that permit holders may not carry handguns in 25 categories of "sensitive places," including parks, zoos, museums, entertainment venues, casinos, medical facilities, "transportation hubs," businesses that serve alcohol, and the sites of public gatherings that require a government permit. The law's broadest category is "private property," where guns are presumptively prohibited unless the owner explicitly says they are allowed by posting "clear and conspicuous signage" or otherwise giving "express consent."

While permit holders are allowed to transport firearms in private vehicles, they must be "unloaded and contained in a closed and securely fastened case, gunbox, or locked unloaded in the trunk of the vehicle." As Bumb notes and the state conceded, those requirements make it impossible for motorists to use handguns for self-defense, although "the need for self-defense" may be especially "acute" in that context "given the State's unfortunately large number of carjackings."

[Torie]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Isn't the second amendment protecting gun ownership as a right at all lowkey judicial activism?

[Torie]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Isn't the second amendment protecting gun ownership as a right at all lowkey judicial activism?

I agree with the point of view that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as opposed to a right to arm well regulated militias. The idea was that citizens should be skilled with arms so that when called to serve they would be competent. So no, I don't think SCOTUS was pushing the legal envelope. The liberal Lawrence Tribe has observed that the 2nd Amendment is a pain in the ass amendment, that he wished would go away. I agree with that.

[politicallefty]

I agree with the point of view that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as opposed to a right to arm well regulated militias. The idea was that citizens should be skilled with arms so that when called to serve they would be competent. So no, I don't think SCOTUS was pushing the legal envelope. The liberal Lawrence Tribe has observed that the 2nd Amendment is a pain in the ass amendment, that he wished would go away. I agree with that.

I haven't read Tribe's observations as to the 2nd Amendment, but I will say that the Court has already engaged in judicial activism by creating the standard that they did. The "history and traditions" test goes far beyond originalism. It supplants the text, ideals, and principles of the Constitution for something else entirely. The right-wing is giving the 2nd Amendment a deferential absoluteness that not even the First Amendment has from its most ardent absolutists.

The structure of the 2nd Amendment is unique in the Constitution with just one other exception (the Copyright Clause). The prefatory clause has essentially been read out of the Constitution by those on the right. I think they are wrong to do so. The text is there for a reason and it has meaning. You can read the 2nd Amendment as an individual right without ignoring the prefatory clause. That means that it is an individual right that can be regulated by the government. I think some people get caught up on the word militia, which meant something quite different than it does today. It's not that meaning has changed per se, just that most people think of militia in the context of the organized militia under the direct control of the government or rogue groups attempting to overthrow the government.

If you consider the 2nd Amendment in the context of the unorganized militia, which was at one point all able-bodied males within a specific age range, it makes better sense. I think it can be read that the Founders intended for the militia to be able-bodied men. That certainly would not comport with today's standards or the Fourteenth Amendment. In that case, it would make sense to read it as the adult citizenry. In that context, well-regulated must mean something more than the government organizing its own forces (i.e. the military and National Guard). The right can be regulated, but not regulated out of existence.

As for the self-defense argument, that is a right that belonged to the people long before 2nd Amendment. Self-defense was and is a right of the people under common law, such as through the castle doctrine.

[Torie]

I agree that guns can be regulated to a "reasonable" extent. The common law is not Constitutional law.

[politicallefty]

I agree that guns can be regulated to a "reasonable" extent. The common law is not Constitutional law.

Of course not. However, common law is the basis for our entire legal system. There are many rights and privileges that we've carried over from common law into constitutional law. 

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Your proposal (which many others here support) is a proposal to strip me of the right to effectively defend myself at the moment I will need this the most should I not be fortunate enough to live in the right state.  Me, and millions of others of law-abiding citizens.  I'm trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but if this idea actually went through it would reduce my ability to defend myself, and it is frustrating that people can't acknowledge even the fact that such a proposal is coming at my epense (in part).

If elections have consequences, constitutional amendments have greater consequences.  Once done, they require supermajorities in both Houses of Congress to undo the damage.  Law-abiding citizens will end up defenseless for their entire lifetimes.  Security systems are not defense.  911 is not defense; not when the police will be there in minutes, but the armed criminal is already where you are.

[Torie]

I made my case, and you made yours, so there is no reason to go over this further. The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed, so you and your gun in your house are safe, despite my point of view that guns in houses kill a lot more than they save. I don't want FL type gun laws to creep north across the Mason Dixon line, and I am sure you don't want the reverse to happen. See you in church.

[It’s so Joever]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Your proposal (which many others here support) is a proposal to strip me of the right to effectively defend myself at the moment I will need this the most should I not be fortunate enough to live in the right state.  Me, and millions of others of law-abiding citizens.  I'm trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but if this idea actually went through it would reduce my ability to defend myself, and it is frustrating that people can't acknowledge even the fact that such a proposal is coming at my epense (in part).

If elections have consequences, constitutional amendments have greater consequences.  Once done, they require supermajorities in both Houses of Congress to undo the damage.  Law-abiding citizens will end up defenseless for their entire lifetimes.  Security systems are not defense.  911 is not defense; not when the police will be there in minutes, but the armed criminal is already where you are.

It would be in a country where guns aren’t permeated into the culture like the UK. Sadly America doesn’t have that and this gun ownership is neccesary.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Your proposal (which many others here support) is a proposal to strip me of the right to effectively defend myself at the moment I will need this the most should I not be fortunate enough to live in the right state.  Me, and millions of others of law-abiding citizens.  I'm trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but if this idea actually went through it would reduce my ability to defend myself, and it is frustrating that people can't acknowledge even the fact that such a proposal is coming at my epense (in part).

If elections have consequences, constitutional amendments have greater consequences.  Once done, they require supermajorities in both Houses of Congress to undo the damage.  Law-abiding citizens will end up defenseless for their entire lifetimes.  Security systems are not defense.  911 is not defense; not when the police will be there in minutes, but the armed criminal is already where you are.

I can't speak for Torie, but I for one would still support a fairly robust (at least by current world standards) statutory right to gun ownership even if it were no longer enshrined as a constitutional provision that tends to get interpreted in an absolute way.

More generally I think it's time to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment is simply poorly written and this, not anything ideological, is the lion's share of why the prefatory clause is such a minefield. That first comma really throws aspiring constitutional exegetes for a loop.

[politicallefty]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Your proposal (which many others here support) is a proposal to strip me of the right to effectively defend myself at the moment I will need this the most should I not be fortunate enough to live in the right state.  Me, and millions of others of law-abiding citizens.  I'm trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but if this idea actually went through it would reduce my ability to defend myself, and it is frustrating that people can't acknowledge even the fact that such a proposal is coming at my epense (in part).

If elections have consequences, constitutional amendments have greater consequences.  Once done, they require supermajorities in both Houses of Congress to undo the damage.  Law-abiding citizens will end up defenseless for their entire lifetimes.  Security systems are not defense.  911 is not defense; not when the police will be there in minutes, but the armed criminal is already where you are.

I can't speak for Torie, but I for one would still support a fairly robust (at least by current world standards) statutory right to gun ownership even if it were no longer enshrined as a constitutional provision that tends to get interpreted in an absolute way.

More generally I think it's time to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment is simply poorly written and this, not anything ideological, is the lion's share of why the prefatory clause is such a minefield. That first comma really throws aspiring constitutional exegetes for a loop.

I largely share your viewpoint here. You can absolutely have a robust statutory right without the absolutism that some would like to read into the 2nd Amendment. A regulated right to gun ownership can work. I imagine that's probably where the average American is when it comes to gun ownership. Unfortunately, the issue with people like Fuzzy is that they live in a siege mentality. The weapons of war that are already plaguing this country won't be enough for self-defense for them. How long before some right-wing judges decide that bans on machine guns are unconstitutional? Second Amendment jurisprudence has lurched far to the right in recent years.

I think what we've discovered with conservative jurisprudence is that textualism was merely a means to a certain end. When it works against them, they ditch it as soon as possible. You only get absolutism with the 2nd Amendment if you completely ignore the prefatory clause. As I noted above, it is one of only two places in the Constitution that include such clauses. If other amendments had such clauses, they would necessarily change the scope of the rights mentioned. We would have to interpret the First Amendment quite differently if it included prefatory clauses regarding the freedom of speech or freedom of the press. But even then, as I mentioned before, even free speech absolutists have limiting principles. I have not seen any coherent limiting principle when it comes to 2nd Amendment absolutists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More generally I think it's time to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment is simply poorly written and this, not anything ideological, is the lion's share of why the prefatory clause is such a minefield. That first comma really throws aspiring constitutional exegetes for a loop.

The overall document is pretty shoddily written (which is not surprising: everyone involved was functionally an amateur, professional standards not really existing in North America at the time), but that particular section is egregiously bad and subsequent attempts to insist that that's just the way Eighteenth Century English was and that, actually, it is perfectly clear are entirely pathetic.

[Jim Crow]

I agree that "certain people" should not have access to guns.

[Ferguson97]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/20/new-jersey-appeals-gun-law-00102812

Appeals court allows New Jersey’s key gun restrictions to take effect amid litigation

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated key parts of New Jersey’s law that prohibits carrying guns in certain parts of the state.

The 2-1 decision from the court allows multiple so-called sensitive places — where New Jersey law bans guns — to take effect as litigation plays out. Prior to that, U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb blocked much of the state’s sensitive places from taking effect, meaning that guns could be carried in areas where New Jersey law sought to prohibit them.

Tuesday’s court order means that carrying guns within 100 feet of public gatherings; nursery schools; pre-schools; zoos; summer camps; public parks; libraries; museums; places where alcohol is served; entertainment facilities; casinos; and health care facilities are prohibited.

Some key parts of the law are still blocked. Restrictions in New Jersey law around carrying guns in vehicles or movie sets, for instance, are still blocked. On private property that is open to the public — like retail stores — if a property owner does not give express permission that guns are allowed on their premises, people can still carry guns there. But a property owner still has the right to not allow guns. The liability insurance mandate for concealed carry holders is also still blocked.

[S019]

Yeah. Now one knows why I just step up to the plate an favor repealing the 2nd Amendment as a gun grabber. There is no good way to finesse the 2nd Amendment, except through what I would consider judicial activism.

Hopefully, NYS's and NYC's outstanding stats regarding the lowest gun deaths in the nation I believe, will not be eroded over time, and the places regress to the more Texas like levels of gun deaths. That would be most unfortunate.

Your proposal (which many others here support) is a proposal to strip me of the right to effectively defend myself at the moment I will need this the most should I not be fortunate enough to live in the right state.  Me, and millions of others of law-abiding citizens.  I'm trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but if this idea actually went through it would reduce my ability to defend myself, and it is frustrating that people can't acknowledge even the fact that such a proposal is coming at my epense (in part).

If elections have consequences, constitutional amendments have greater consequences.  Once done, they require supermajorities in both Houses of Congress to undo the damage.  Law-abiding citizens will end up defenseless for their entire lifetimes.  Security systems are not defense.  911 is not defense; not when the police will be there in minutes, but the armed criminal is already where you are.

It would be in a country where guns aren’t permeated into the culture like the UK. Sadly America doesn’t have that and this gun ownership is neccesary.

Ignorant opinions like these are exactly why this problem exists to begin with.