Update July 14, 2023:
Back in May 2023, United States District Judge Rene Bumb ruled in a Preliminary Injunction Decision of over 200 pages that most of New Jersey's new law in response to Bruen restricting concealed carry violated the Constitution. In short her opinion said to the New Jersey Legislature and Governor: "You must be kidding." This was immediately appealed by the State to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On June 20, 2023, with no analysis whatsoever, the Third Circuit stayed much but not all of Judge Bumb's Preliminary Injunction, which has the effect of reinstating until the appeal is fully heard much of what Judge Bumb ruled was against the Constitution.
Under the Third Circuit's June 20 Ruling the following places which places are added for now to those places where no carry is allowed even with a carry permit. All previous places where carry was not allowed are still in place. (In legalese, Judge Bumb's Ruling on the following places is stayed pending appeal)
The places added by the Third Circuit:
(6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event;
.
(9) a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp;
.
(10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun-free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety;
.
(12) a publicly owned or leased library or museum;
.
(15) a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises;
.
(17) a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held;
.
(18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property;
.
(21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility;
*******
Most significantly, the prohibition in a car and the prohibition on private property unless explicitly permitted were not reinstated
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Update February 8
The next deadlines
Feb 10: Joint Letter on number of PI witnesses and days
Feb 13: PI Opposition due.
Feb 21: PI Reply due.
To be determined: PI Hearing date
On February 7 the Koons Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that, in essence, limited the challenges to what Judge Bumb had already found was likely unconstitutional. IMHO this was very wise
Amended Complaint by Koons plaintiffs here
On February 7 Judge Bumb ordered a briefing schedule for the Preliminary Injunction Hearing:
On January 31 Judge Bumb confirmed that she did not restrain the recent New Jersey law as it applied to playgrounds unconnected to schools.
On January 30, Judge Bumb issued another TRO Order that basically confirmed her prior TRO Order. Some of the challenges were rejected for lack of standing.
Opinion Here
Update January 28
A hearing was conducted for the Siegel Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO by Judge Bumb on January 26. This is the same Judge who already granted a TRO to the Koons Plaintiffs.
A report by a poster on Reddit indicates that the Hearing went very well for the pro-2A Plaintiffs. This report on Reddit says Judge Bumb ordered at the Hearing that the preliminary injunction s requested by the Siegel and Koons plaintiffs will be heard in a single hearing (this is good for the 2A).
If anyone has a link to the January 26 Yranaceipt please post it or send me the link via PM
Update January 26
On January 23 the State Defendants proposed a schedule that a) would have the Preliminary Injunction on the common Koons and Siegel challenges briefed by February 13 and heard by the court during the week of February 13; and b) have the Preliminary Injunction on the remaining issues briefed by March 8 and heard by the court the week of March 13 or March 20
On January 24 NICHOLAS P. SCUTARI, President of the
New Jersey Senate, and CRAIG J. COUGHLIN, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly moved to intervene (i.e. become part of the case.) Brief here
Note from the OP: These politicians should be careful what they ask for. If the Motion to intervene is granted and they become part of the case they will be opening themselves to discovery by plaintiffs and the scrutiny of the Court
On January 25 the Pro-2A Plaintiffs sent a letter t the Court saying that the two sets of claims should not be split up for the Preliminary Injunction. Letter here
Update January 18
The TRO Hearing before Judge for the Siegel plaintiffs was see for January 26:
Link to Docket in KOONS v. REYNOLDS
Update January 13
The judge in the first and bigger case about the New Jersey carry law consolidated her case into the Koons case where that judge had already issued a TRO against an important subset of the law. This is an excellent development as the judge in the Koons case has already decided much in favor of the 2A.
Update
Immediately after the TRO issued in the second case (Koons), Judge Williams in the first case (Siegel) moved the TRO Hearing January 9 to January 12 and asked for supplemental briefing.
In the Supplemental Briefing so far the State has pleaded sour grapes and the Plaintiffs (the good guys) say that the Siegel case should be consolidated into the Koons case because Judge Bumb in the Koons case has already written a 60 page opinion.
TRO granted in Koon
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6681/attachments/original/1673275321/Koons_v_Reynolds_Order_on_Motion_for_Temporary_Restraining_Order.pdf?1673275321
There are at least two important challenges to the recent New Jersey law was enacted with the express purpose to choke off the right to carry in New Jersey.
The first case was brought by the New Jersey affiliate of the NRA--GO TEAM! This case challenges the "sensitive place" and vehicle restrictions of the the new law. The sensitive place restrictions read as follows:
The vehicle restriction reads as follows
In this first case, the Judge ordered an expedited briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to enjoin the law on a temporary basis and the hearing is set for January 9
The second case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and asks the Court to enjoin the law on 4 of the sensitive places and the vehicle restriction
The four sensitive places in the second case:
In the second case, on December 26, when the Court was otherwise closed for vacation, the Judge Ordered the State of New Jersey to show cause why the provisions challenged in that case were NOT unconstitutional. The hearing will be on January 5. This is the legal equivalent of the Judge telling New Jersey: "Hey cupcake, tell me -- right now -- if there is any reason why I should not stomp you good!"
Link to Docket in KOONS v. REYNOLDS
Back in May 2023, United States District Judge Rene Bumb ruled in a Preliminary Injunction Decision of over 200 pages that most of New Jersey's new law in response to Bruen restricting concealed carry violated the Constitution. In short her opinion said to the New Jersey Legislature and Governor: "You must be kidding." This was immediately appealed by the State to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On June 20, 2023, with no analysis whatsoever, the Third Circuit stayed much but not all of Judge Bumb's Preliminary Injunction, which has the effect of reinstating until the appeal is fully heard much of what Judge Bumb ruled was against the Constitution.
Under the Third Circuit's June 20 Ruling the following places which places are added for now to those places where no carry is allowed even with a carry permit. All previous places where carry was not allowed are still in place. (In legalese, Judge Bumb's Ruling on the following places is stayed pending appeal)
The places added by the Third Circuit:
(6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event;
.
(9) a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp;
.
(10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun-free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety;
.
(12) a publicly owned or leased library or museum;
.
(15) a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises;
.
(17) a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held;
.
(18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property;
.
(21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility;
*******
Most significantly, the prohibition in a car and the prohibition on private property unless explicitly permitted were not reinstated
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Update February 8
The next deadlines
Feb 10: Joint Letter on number of PI witnesses and days
Feb 13: PI Opposition due.
Feb 21: PI Reply due.
To be determined: PI Hearing date
On February 7 the Koons Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that, in essence, limited the challenges to what Judge Bumb had already found was likely unconstitutional. IMHO this was very wise
Amended Complaint by Koons plaintiffs here
On February 7 Judge Bumb ordered a briefing schedule for the Preliminary Injunction Hearing:
On January 31 Judge Bumb confirmed that she did not restrain the recent New Jersey law as it applied to playgrounds unconnected to schools.
On January 30, Judge Bumb issued another TRO Order that basically confirmed her prior TRO Order. Some of the challenges were rejected for lack of standing.
Opinion Here
Update January 28
A hearing was conducted for the Siegel Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO by Judge Bumb on January 26. This is the same Judge who already granted a TRO to the Koons Plaintiffs.
A report by a poster on Reddit indicates that the Hearing went very well for the pro-2A Plaintiffs. This report on Reddit says Judge Bumb ordered at the Hearing that the preliminary injunction s requested by the Siegel and Koons plaintiffs will be heard in a single hearing (this is good for the 2A).
If anyone has a link to the January 26 Yranaceipt please post it or send me the link via PM
Update January 26
On January 23 the State Defendants proposed a schedule that a) would have the Preliminary Injunction on the common Koons and Siegel challenges briefed by February 13 and heard by the court during the week of February 13; and b) have the Preliminary Injunction on the remaining issues briefed by March 8 and heard by the court the week of March 13 or March 20
On January 24 NICHOLAS P. SCUTARI, President of the
New Jersey Senate, and CRAIG J. COUGHLIN, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly moved to intervene (i.e. become part of the case.) Brief here
Note from the OP: These politicians should be careful what they ask for. If the Motion to intervene is granted and they become part of the case they will be opening themselves to discovery by plaintiffs and the scrutiny of the Court
On January 25 the Pro-2A Plaintiffs sent a letter t the Court saying that the two sets of claims should not be split up for the Preliminary Injunction. Letter here
Update January 18
The TRO Hearing before Judge for the Siegel plaintiffs was see for January 26:
Link to Docket in KOONS v. REYNOLDS
Update January 13
The judge in the first and bigger case about the New Jersey carry law consolidated her case into the Koons case where that judge had already issued a TRO against an important subset of the law. This is an excellent development as the judge in the Koons case has already decided much in favor of the 2A.
Update
Immediately after the TRO issued in the second case (Koons), Judge Williams in the first case (Siegel) moved the TRO Hearing January 9 to January 12 and asked for supplemental briefing.
In the Supplemental Briefing so far the State has pleaded sour grapes and the Plaintiffs (the good guys) say that the Siegel case should be consolidated into the Koons case because Judge Bumb in the Koons case has already written a 60 page opinion.
TRO granted in Koon
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6681/attachments/original/1673275321/Koons_v_Reynolds_Order_on_Motion_for_Temporary_Restraining_Order.pdf?1673275321
There are at least two important challenges to the recent New Jersey law was enacted with the express purpose to choke off the right to carry in New Jersey.
The first case was brought by the New Jersey affiliate of the NRA--GO TEAM! This case challenges the "sensitive place" and vehicle restrictions of the the new law. The sensitive place restrictions read as follows:
The vehicle restriction reads as follows
In this first case, the Judge ordered an expedited briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to enjoin the law on a temporary basis and the hearing is set for January 9
The second case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and asks the Court to enjoin the law on 4 of the sensitive places and the vehicle restriction
The four sensitive places in the second case:
In the second case, on December 26, when the Court was otherwise closed for vacation, the Judge Ordered the State of New Jersey to show cause why the provisions challenged in that case were NOT unconstitutional. The hearing will be on January 5. This is the legal equivalent of the Judge telling New Jersey: "Hey cupcake, tell me -- right now -- if there is any reason why I should not stomp you good!"
Link to Docket in KOONS v. REYNOLDS
Last edited:
