Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.
Second Amendment Foundation is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.
Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”
“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens. We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.
“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.
“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said. “The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”