When it Comes to Guns, N.J. not in with the Inn Crowd
People probably visited inns in the 1800s carrying firearms.
So?
History is very important when it comes to guns in New Jersey today.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states such as New Jersey could no longer limit the right to carry firearms to those who demonstrated a genuine need to do so. But it did say that carrying firearms in “sensitive places” could be prohibited.
What are “sensitive places?”
The court said they must be locales where there is a documented tradition of banning weapons.
In response, the state Legislature passed a bill last year that included a lengthy list of “sensitive places.” Speaking about New Jersey gun laws in Tuesday’s State of the State address, Gov. Phil Murphy said the measure was “carefully crafted.”
Not carefully enough apparently.
A federal judge on Monday granted a restraining order preventing the state from enforcing part of the law pending further hearings.
Specifically, it said the state cannot ban the carrying of weapons in the following places – libraries and museums, restaurants where alcohol is served and entertainment centers.
In short, Judge Renee Marie Bumb said the state’s list of “sensitive places” is so encompassing that it constitutes a “veritable minefield” for those trying to comply with it.
The ruling has been praised by many state Republicans, but let’s remember that many other parts of the law, including the need to purchase liability insurance if you want to carry a gun remain. As does the banning of weapons in government buildings, hospitals and transportation centers.
In examining the “sensitive places” challenged by a number of gun rights’ groups, the judge said there simply is no historical evidence that weapons have been banned in libraries, bars and entertainment centers.
It pointed out that libraries, for example, predate the United States itself. Left unsaid was that lawmakers over many years certainly have had the opportunity to ban library patrons from carrying weapons, but have not done so.
The ruling said the state’s arguments defending the law were not supported by historical documentation.
For instance, in defending the banning of firearms in entertainment centers, the state cited past laws banning guns in places “where crowds gather.” The judge said this argument wasn’t good enough, noting that the cited statute out of Virginia also mentioned someone threatening to “terror” or terrorize the relevant county. The inference was that carrying a firearm was only illegal under this law if one used it for an illegal purpose.
And so it went, with the judge dismissing just about all the state had to say on the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.
This case is not over. This was only a temporary order. But you probably can see where we are headed.
It is here where we must point out that the court’s literal interpretation of past firearms regulation in light of last year’s Supreme Court action may be solid.
But in the real world of New Jersey in 2023, one runs the risk of running afoul of basic common sense. That may not be a concern of the courts, but it is a concern for everyday people.
People carrying guns at entertainment centers?
Think MetLife Stadium where skirmishes among rowdy and often tipsy football fans are not uncommon.
Would some of those applauding Monday’s ruling really feel safe knowing that an untold number of fans at a Jets or Giants game may be armed?
One answer, of course, would be that those who feel unsafe can bring their own guns.
That hardly seems like a sensible solution.
People in 44 states currently have a right to carry a firearm. Its only a few far left states that only allow the select anointed few to get carry permits. And in those 44 states, the vast majority of carriers follow the law and don’t pull out their guns in random altercations. Fact is conceal carry citizens are 6 times less likely to misuse a firearm than even the police. We have data now going back a decade from these 44 states and it shows that Americans are responsible and trustworthy. Most importantly, guns are used far more often for defensive purposes than offensive reasons (60K versus 15K). So an armed citizenry is a net benefit to society. The Dems who don’t trust their own constituents, in spite of the data, should be voted out of office.
Murphy fears the use of firearms against totalitarian government like his reign. Restrictions on guns is not a safety issues; it’s a power issue to control the people when they use their constitutional right and duty to remove tyrants from office. And Murphy and his demoncrats are the tyrants.
All of his demoncrats and himself fear the general public so they need to take the public’s weapons. Every one of Jersey’s anti gun regulations are unconstitutional viewed historically. The second amendment does not require firearms training and a test nor does it require liability insurance to bear aka carry arms.
Murphy and all legislation passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional should be charged with treason and arraigned facing punishment. As is, they have no liability when they are overruled by scotus. If they were liable, they would be more hesitant to violate the USA 🇺🇸 constitution in word or in spirit. Prosecute them like other law breakers to stop their illegal power grab.
I grew up in PA. When I reached age
21, iapplied for a ccw permit, which
I was granted. For years I carried and fortunately
I never had a need to draw my weapon.
Now I live in New Jersey, but the democrats don’t
Believe that I shouldn’t have the opportunity
To defend/protect my family. Funny, our
Democratic leaders must be more important
Than my family cause they have protection
And at our expense.
I agree we have laws on the books to protect ourselves while driving like having to wear seatbelts .Why not be able to protect yourself from being car jacked .It is only seconds you have to react if someone is trying to Carmack you and you don’t have time to wait for 911 to help you.This is a serious issue you could get hurt or even killed in a situation like that.These people that are trying to keep people from using their rights to protect themselves either have paid protection or have never been put in a situation that will endanger their lives or don’t ever think it will happen to them.
I have been a law abiding gun owner since I served in Vietnam and I haven’t abused that right. I also am the holder of non resident carry permits for a couple of states and have not abused that right and the process to obtain those permits were no where near as exhausting as NJ. I applied over a month and a half ago not acceptable for it taking 4 months as of today. I just want the same constitutional rights other states enjoy
I really don’t understand what is is to understand that regardless of a right to carry, criminal activity will always exist. Why is that NJ politics is putting targets on perfectly innocent people that in the God willing never having to protect themselves or family or other innocent people they refuse to be pro active in preventing the aliens who are not going to care and are just laughing everytime its gets knocked down. They.. the criminals know full well they have the upper hand and are taking full advantage of it knowing that innocent people are unarmed.
Weird to me that some normal citizens who aren’t armed as part of their job feel they need to carry loaded weapons around as they go about their day.
This is unbelieveable. I worked in a library for 25 years and never worried that some angry patron may take it out on the employees there. Now, my co-workers have to worry about their day to day safety? The gun laws in the US are so skewed to the crazies that it’s laughable, and we wonder why we have so many tragic situations all over this country. Thoughts and prayers, right?????????? Who IS this crazy judge? Bet she has a lifetime appt, too.
Wait! The Jets and The NY Giants are New York teams! Who wrote this?
It is truly bizarre that in a state where gun ownership is not widely popular that a court would find fault with the notion that weapons would be barred from a library.
Somehow the judge forgets about the majority (which is presumably made up of those who don’t own guns). Certainly we deserve protection from the crazies.
Sensitive places?! What a joke. Who are these clowns
Roofer Oklahoma