May 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 33

Public Parks
With regard to public parks, the federal district court
found the " the State has provided something more for
the Court to consider, " including " historical analogues
for the State's authority to restrict firearms in parks
that are publicly owned or controlled. " In so doing,
the court noted Defendants had relied upon " a Central
Park Ordinance in New York from 1861 " :
In that Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of
Central Park forbade all persons " to carry firearms or to
throw stones or other missiles within the park. " The Ordinance
set forth other prohibited activities as well, such
as no climbing or walking up on the wall; no livestock;
entry by gateways only; and no injury to any parts of
the park.
Defendants also had cited provisions similar to the
Central Park Ordinance contained in an 1870 Ordinance
regarding Fairmount Park in Philadelphia,
including:
No persons shall carry firearms, or shoot birds in the
Park, or within fifty yards thereof, or throw stones or missiles
therein.
In addition, Defendants had presented historical
evidence that firearms were prohibited in parks in
St. Louis, Missouri (1881), Chicago, Illinois (1881),
St. Paul, Minnesota (1888), and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(1893).
City Parks
Based upon these historical analogues, the federal district
court acknowledged Defendants had " attempted
to comply with Bruen " by providing the court with
some evidence that " Subpart 10 accords with our historical
tradition of firearm regulation, as it relates to
public parks. " The federal district court, however, held
" Defendants' evidence is not convincing " because " the
statutes Defendants cite all refer to public parks in a city
(i.e., New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, St.
Paul, and Pittsburgh. " As a result, the federal district
court would grant Plaintiffs' motion and " temporarily
enjoin the prohibition on carrying in public parks. "
In so doing, the federal district court acknowledged
" there may be some historical precedent for
restricting public carry in parks located in densely
populated areas. " The court, however, found " Subpart
10 goes much further, " prohibiting " firearms in
any park owned or controlled by a State, county or
local government unit. " 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 7(a)
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | MAY 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
33
When the Power Goes Out,
the CivicPlus®
System Shines Bright
Whether it's a natural disaster, inclement weather, or public safety
matter, we have your solution. You and your staff can rapidly draft,
text, approve, and send time-sensitive messages to multiple
channels with just one click.
Scan the QR code to get started.
(10). As a result, the court held " Subpart 10 is not
constitutional as drafted. "
In particular, the federal district court found
" the evidence cited does not support the sweeping
proposition that New Jersey may prohibit law-abiding
firearm owners from carrying their firearms in all
public parks. " Further, in the opinion of the court,
" Defendants' city laws do not establish a historical
tradition of restricting firearms in all public parks
because the practice of restricting firearms in city
parks is not representative of the nation " :
Six cities do not speak for, what was by 1893, 44 states.
Under Bruen, the State's evidence is not sufficient for the
broader proposition that carrying firearms can be forbidden
in all public parks in the State of New Jersey.
In so doing, the court noted: " The New Jersey State
Park Service alone administers over 452,000 acres of
land comprising parks, forests, historic sites, and other
recreation areas. "
Prior to Bruen, the federal district court acknowlMass
Notification
May 2023 - Parks & Recreation

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