The federal court has issued an interim restraining order for New Jersey legislation that would result in an unprecedented increase in gun control within the state.
The law, which was enacted in 2012, created “sensitive places” in which guns could be prohibited. The definition was so broad, it was able to cover nearly everything and that was probably the purpose. The SCOTUS Bruen ruling of last year overruled state laws on second amendment rights which had been a source of log-jamming guns in extreme left states such as California as well as New York. New Jersey's law was a reaction to the decision.
Plaintiffs in the suit against the law claimed that the “sensitive places” clause caused a “veritable minefield” for gun owners. U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb was in agreement in her 60-page ruling and said that no historic precedents could be discovered to justify that “sensitive places” language.
“As plaintiffs complain, the challenged provisions require a person who is allowed to carry a gun within New Jersey to navigate a “veritable minefield “. Their argument is valid. The Court is aware of no constitutional right that demands such a lot of guesswork for those seeking to exercise that right.”
Attorney and Watcher of the SCOTUS, Gabriel Malor pointed out that New Jersey's effort to defer the decision to “gather historical evidence” for the judge was rebuffed. Bumb informed those who were defendants during her ruling that, not only did they have six months in which to collect the information, but the court's Bruen decision clarified that any legislature that enacted the issue of gun control must show “historical tradition” when introducing legislation to regulate guns. The state ought to have had the information in hand due to the law that had been passed.
“Surely defendants have or could have had the historical information in the analyses that the State was relying on in its initial legal response Bruen. The Supreme Court was clear that in the event that any gun control law to pass constitutional scrutiny in accordance with the Second Amendment, the legislation must be in line with historical precedent. The state was given six weeks from Bruen to find historically accurate and reliable historical analogies.”
Bumb's ruling stated that the plaintiffs – who had concealed permits to carry – were stripped of the Second Amendment rights, and “neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws.”
Democrat leadership said the ruling was the “first stage in a lengthy process.”