May 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 31

Second Amendment
Standing
Plaintiffs,
licensed
carriers,
filed
motions for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction
to block enforcement of this
new legislation pending further trial
proceedings and a final judgment
on their constitutional law claims.
Plaintiffs alleged several provisions
of the newly enacted legislation deprived
them of their constitutional
rights under the Second Amendment.
In particular, Plaintiffs argued
the new legislation " renders
nearly the entire State of New Jersey
a 'sensitive place' where handgun
carry is prohibited. "
In order to have a federal district
court consider the merits of
their Second Amendment claims,
Plaintiffs had to first establish legal
standing to bring their lawsuit. In
so doing, Plaintiffs had to have suffered
an " injury in fact, " meaning
the injury is of a legally protected
interest that is concrete and particularized
and actual or imminent. To
establish standing, the alleged injury
must be likely, rather than speculative,
that a favorable decision by
the court will redress the injury.
In this case, the federal district
court was satisfied that Plaintiffs,
as licensed carriers of firearms, had
legal standing to bring their Second
Amendment lawsuit because " such
places are clearly part of at least
one Plaintiff's daily life " :
With regard to parks and beaches,
the Court is satisfied that such
places are part of several of the
Plaintiffs' daily lives.
Plaintiff
Siegel avers that he frequently
hikes and walks in public parks
near his home; he also goes to
publicly owned beaches, including
the Wildwood, New Jersey beach.
Plaintiff Cook enjoys walking
trails in State parks several times
per month. Plaintiff DeLuca " regularly "
enjoys walking his dog in
State parks and on public beaches.
Having " shown an immediate
threat of injury if they were to
resume carrying their concealed
handguns with them as they did
prior to the law's enactment, " including
possible fines and imprisonment
for criminal violations, the
federal district court held " Plaintiffs
have standing as to some of the
challenged restrictions. "
Bruen Standard Application
In applying the clarified Second
Amendment standard of judicial
review under Bruen to the newly
enacted New Jersey legislation, the
federal district court found its role
was " a straightforward one " :
First, does the conduct being
challenged fall within the text of
the Second Amendment? If so,
is there historical support for the
conduct being restricted? Defendants
must justify the provisions
of Chapter 131 by demonstrating
that the regulation is consistent
with this Nation's historical tradition
of firearm regulation.
Defendants, several New Jersey
government officials, maintained
the challenged provisions were supported
by a historical tradition of
firearm regulation consistent with
the dictates of Bruen. The federal
district
court, however,
rejected
Defendants' position, finding " no
basis in this country's history and
tradition of firearms regulation " :
In the colonial and Founding
era in particular, restrictions on
the right to carry firearms in public
appears to have been quite limited.
The settlers had the liberty to
carry their privately-owned arms
openly or concealed in a " peaceable
manner, " and nine of the
thirteen original colonies declined
to regulate the keeping or bearing
of arms whatsoever.
Following Independence from
Britain and throughout the 19th
Century, some states began to experiment
with gun-free zones, but
aside from the categories outlined
above, many of these restrictions
were short-lived.
Citing Bruen, in general, the
court found " the historical practice
of establishing sensitive place
designations, or 'gun-free zones,'
has centered on a few distinct locations, "
including:
[G]overnment buildings
(such
as legislative assemblies or courthouses
or where the State is acting
within the heartland of its authority),
polling places, and schools.
The question before the federal
district court was, therefore, whether
the newly enacted legislation,
consistent with Bruen, also could
expressly establish public park and
recreation resources as designated
sensitive places or gun-free zones.
Subpart 10 Firearm
Regulations
As cited by the
federal
district
court, Section 7(a)(10) of the New
Jersey legislation prohibited carrying
a firearm onto the following
public places:
[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. 2022 N.J.
Laws c. 131 § 7(a)(10).
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | MAY 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
31
May 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2023 - Parks & Recreation
