Posted on 01/10/2023 9:40:12 AM PST by rellimpank
Afederal judge ruled Monday that part of New Jersey’s concealed carry gun law, which dictates where a concealed firearm can be carried, is unconstitutional.
District Judge Renée Marie Bumb placed a temporary restraining order on the law’s “sensitive places” restrictions, saying they violate the Second Amendment rights of New Jersey residents, according to the ruling. Bumb based her ruling on the belief that the state did not have the “historical tradition” of regulating where a concealed carry permit can be used.
“Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions,” Bumb wrote in the ruling. “The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as the holders of valid permits from the State to conceal carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
“Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints,” she continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I think this “historic tradition” idea came from a USSC opinion. Can someone explain it’s meaning. I’m still stuck on the words, “shall not infringe”.
Leftist speak for "suppression of your Constitutional rights"
if parts are unconstitutional, than all of it is unconstitutional... the law must be thrown out or we get another obama care type ruling.
There needs to be a provable history, at or around the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, of the same or similar colonial/state governmental restrictions as are in the challenged statute.
Justice Thomas said it best in NYSRPA v. Bruen:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
A historic tradition would be like a sign in saloons across that state saying, check your guns at the door, then at some point the state codifies it into law. No guns in saloons. A common sense thing in the 1800’s where some people thought even then guns and alcohol don’t mix. However, no history, no new creation of limitations. That’s where the infringement comes in. It was a reasonable compromise, which is what courts do at times.
If you have turds floating around in a punch bowl, the whole damn thing is polluted. It’s impossible to drink around the turds.
Thanks. I’ll doubt I will ever be satisfied with 2a rules. I am too binary in my thinking. Historic tradition of limiting rights only has time on its side in my estimation. So, whoever came up with the idea of trampling rights first gets to continue to do so.
Basically, the Supremes got sick of states trying to find new ways to “get around” the SC striking down unconstitutional gun laws, so a recent ruling basically says “if you can’t show us a gun law from your state from around 1850 or before that has this restriction, then it’s automatically invalid”.
In 2006, Bumb was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by President George W. Bush on January 25, 2006 to a seat vacated by William H. Walls. Bumb was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 6, 2006 by a vote of 89-0 and received her commission on June 12, 2006.
good!
You should read “The Weapons Shop of Isher” by AE Van Vogt. It’s from 1951. . Very prescient,it is an expansion of some of his 1941 short stories. The ongoing theme is the right to own weapons is the right to be free.
Thanks for the book recommendation
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.