BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in New Jersey has granted a temporary restraining order in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and several co-plaintiffs in a challenge of that state’s new gun control law which criminalizes carry in a vastly expanded set of “sensitive areas.”

U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Camden noted, “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions” of the new law. SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and three private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, NY.

Also in her opinion, Judge Bumb observed, “The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. 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.”

“This is another example of the important precedent found in language in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last June,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Clearly, New Jersey lawmakers have gone too far in crafting a law to get around the high court’s decision.”

“We are pleased that Judge Bumb recognizes the plaintiffs’ probability of success in challenging a law restricting the right to bear arms in public that has no basis in this country’s history or tradition.,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut concurred.

Judge Bumb admonished New Jersey for attempting to delay court action by promising to provide information supporting its position, yet offered no supporting documentation. She said “the only reasonable conclusion from Defendants’ posturing: their dragging of feet is evidence that no such historical tradition and evidence exists.”