August 21, 2023

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” statute have filed a response brief to the state’s appeal. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction against the state. New Jersey sought a stay of that order pending appeal, to which SAF filed a brief in opposition.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and four private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Jensen, Beacon, N.Y.

“The state is trying to justify the challenged provisions of its ‘sensitive places’ law, which makes it virtually impossible for people with carry permits to actually go to most places,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Essentially, Garden State residents can walk out the front door with their legally-carried firearms, but they can’t really go anywhere.”

“We maintain the District Court acted properly by issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of this ‘sensitive places’ statute,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.  “The Anti-Carry Default provision of the law, which prohibits carrying on private property without the owner’s express permission, is tantamount to prohibiting lawful carry in most public places. The section prohibiting carrying a gun in a vehicle, unless the gun is unloaded and placed in a securely fastened case literally makes legal carry impossible while traveling.”

Both SAF officials say it is impossible for the state to show the challenged provisions of the law, known as Chapter 131, are consistent with a historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“It is a requirement of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year,” Kraut noted, “and they can’t meet that requirement because there was no such Founding-era tradition. The state has failed to show such examples, and the injunctions should be upheld.”