Judge strikes down bulk of NJ law prohibiting guns at ‘sensitive places’

TRENTON, N.J. (CN) — A New Jersey law that bars firearms from schools, beaches and other areas deemed sensitive was gutted on Tuesday by a Republican-appointed federal judge.  

The 235-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb guts most of the provisions of Chapter 131, which had prohibited carrying a firearm in 25 designated “sensitive places,” including beaches, parks, schools, libraries, casinos and bars. The 2022 state law also had increased the minimum liability insurance requirement for carry permit holders and changed other permitting processes.

A handful of gun owners and several guns rights groups filed suit in response to the law, claiming it unconstitutionally replaced the previous law's requirement for gun owners to show a “justifiable need” with an even-worse “sensitive places” restriction.

Bumb, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, granted several preliminary injunctions against the law while the case was being heard, indicating that it was only a matter of time until part or all of it was struck down.

Opting not to strike Chapter 131 from the books entirely, Bumb found most of its permitting requirements consistent with the Second Amendment. She also noted, however, that portions of the law “went too far, becoming the kind of law that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have warned against,” in that it would disarm those who were not inclined to commit crimes.

The upshot of the ruling is that guns can now be carried in most areas previously deemed sensitive. As in the case of government buildings, Bumb wrote that Chapter 131 “introduces an anti-carry presumption on property where plaintiffs would otherwise be a lawful entrant,” which is unconstitutional.

Bumb did keep the section of the law prohibiting firearms on private property without the express consent of the owner, meaning a barkeeper could require patrons to enter without firearms or a homeowner could demand visitors do so unarmed. She struck down the section that barring carry permit holders from private property held open to the public, though.

Noting the spate of recent gun violence, Bumb nevertheless was unpersuaded that Tuesday's ruling would result in more shootings. “If the state is going to argue that there will be an increase in gun violence absent Chapter 131 that regulates the conduct of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm, it should at least make an attempt to point to apposite statistics,” she wrote. “It has not done so.”

State officials were outraged over the decision.

“Today’s decision is devastating for public safety,” NJ Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in a statement, noting evidence shows keeping firearms out of sensitive places keeps residents safe. “But the court now insists that we are powerless to protect New Jersey residents, and proclaims that the Second Amendment requires allowing guns at parks and beaches, in libraries, at public gatherings, in zoos, and even in bars, among other sensitive places.”

Platkin noted the ruling has one silver lining: that individuals and business owners can keep guns off their property. “Nothing in today’s opinion changes that important realty,” he said. Platkin’s office appealed the ruling immediately.

One of the guns rights groups, Firearms Policy Coalition, stated it was “thrilled with today’s outcome” and said it allowed self-defense outside the home. “New Jersey lawmakers appear intent on continuing to thumb their noses at the mandates of the Constitution but today the court issued a resounding ‘no,’” Bill Sack, FPC’s Director of Legal Operations, said in a statement.

“We are very pleased,” attorney Daniel Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki, who represented the gun owners in the case, said in an interview about the ruling. “This is a significant indication of the courts siding with the people’s right to bear arms under the Constitution.” 

In upholding gun restrictions at certain public places, Bumb emphasized the “government-provided security feature” of some areas, such as polling places and transportation hubs.

Bumb denied standing to some of the plaintiffs regarding the new permit application rules, also noting the new requirements are similar to other historical laws and the “historical tradition” of prohibiting dangerous individuals from having firearms. “Indeed, both the reputable persons and in-person interview requirements focus on the risk of danger to the applicant and the public if the applicant is allowed to have a firearm,” Bumb wrote.

She also wrote that licensing officials — as of now — may continue to request “other information” from carry permit applicants, as long as the requests apply to the applicant’s risk to public safety or potential for danger.

Chapter 131 had also mandated additional insurance, but Bumb struck this down as well, noting it creates an unconstitutional burden on gun ownership. “Despite the state’s argument, the insurance mandate does regulate who can carry firearms in public: only those insured carry permit holders,” Bumb wrote.

Follow @NickRummell

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit