The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Second Amendment Roundup: Whatever Happened to Koons?
Third Circuit still hasn’t decided New Jersey’s years-old “sensitive places” appeal.
The ink wasn't even dry after the Supreme Court decided Bruen in 2022 when New Jersey and a handful of other disgruntled states rushed to counterattack by criminalizing the carrying of firearms by persons with permits in numerous public places. "The legislative record reveals the Legislature paid little to no mind to Bruen and the law-abiding New Jerseyans' right to bear arms in public for self-defense. Again, the law's primary sponsor declared that 'Because of Bruen, more New Jerseyans will die as result of gun violence.'"
Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb in the consolidated cases of Koons & Siegel v. Platkin, decided on May 16, 2023 wrote an incredibly thorough 230-page opinion, applied Bruen's text and history approach, and found that much of the New Jersey law likely violated the Second Amendment. She issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of those provisions.
The most egregious portions of the law made it a felony to enter private property open to the public unless a "gun owners welcome" sign was posted, or to carry a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle. Other banned places ran the gamut from bars and beaches to public gatherings and state parks.
Judge Bumb analyzed countless historical laws cited by the state and found that they were not appropriate historical analogues that would justify the current prohibitions. I'm proud to say that she repeatedly cited two of my books, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class? and The Founders' Second Amendment.
New Jersey filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which the Third Circuit granted in part and denied in part on June 20, 2023. The injunction against the laundry list of specific "sensitive places" was stayed, while the injunction regarding private property open to the public and carry in vehicles was left in place. The clerk's office was "instructed to issue an expedited briefing schedule forthwith."
The Third Circuit then held oral argument promptly on October 25, 2023. For the two consolidated cases, the argument lasted two hours and forty minutes before Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, Judge David Porter, and Judge Cindy Chung. And that's where the trail ends. Almost two years have passed without a decision.
To be sure, the state submitted countless pages of historical laws into the record. But they are all either not analogues, because they do not concern the peaceable carrying of arms, or were enacted toward the end of the nineteenth century, too late to be relevant to the original public understanding of the Second Amendment. The judges and their clerks need not expend too much time reviewing them.
Justice Clarence Thomas has several times ended a dissent from denial of cert with words like the following, in this instance from Snope v. Brown: "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'" The same logic applies when lower courts unduly extend deciding constitutional claims.
Hopefully the Third Circuit will decide Koons in the near future.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Does 3C typically have a problem with 2A questions?
To be sure, the state submitted countless pages of historical laws into the record. But they are all either not analogues, because they do not concern the peaceable carrying of arms, or were enacted toward the end of the nineteenth century, too late to be relevant to the original public understanding of the Second Amendment
What gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to cherry pick what constitutes historical evidence? Bruen purports to put more than half of U.S. history off limits to litigants. Based on what?
Also, the notion of, "Original Public Understanding," has nothing to do with the past. You will search the historical record of the founding era in vain for any such locution, or for any relevant contextual analogue. How can a judicial decision which ignores the reasoning style of the past—which would demonstrably surprise and jolt people of that era had they encountered it—be about the past?
The language itself is not part of any query categorically related to past. Bruen's language belongs properly not to the category of historical query, but instead to the categories of rhetoric and persuasion. And not even to past-related rhetoric and persuasion, but entirely to rhetoric and persuasion as practiced during the recent present era.
By including it, the argument Halbrook attempts paradoxically rules itself out, by standards announced in Bruen's purported analytical strictures. Not that Bruen's analytical strictures ought to be taken seriously. As this instance demonstrates, Bruen is founded not on analysis, but on intellectual chaos incompetent to provide basis for reasoned argument.
The substance of the decision is about present practical endeavor, to announce a means to get today's courts to reach ends today's politics demand, as announced by today's Justice Thomas, who consulted nothing more past-related than his breakfast menu before purportedly imposing historical standards on jurisprudence for all time to come.
Thomas knows nothing of past, and nothing of future, he knows only what he wants now. That's good enough for Halbrook, apparently. Halbrook wants what Thomas wants. That is the actual basis for the OP presented here.
Stephen Lathrop 7 hours ago
"What gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to cherry pick what constitutes historical evidence? Bruen purports to put more than half of U.S. history off limits to litigants. Based on what?"
Lathrop - By now you should know that Stevens and the control advocates/anti 2A have done vastly more cherrypicking in their historical analysis.
Let's assume Bruen is bad law. What do you propose instead? The "We can ban whatever we want if we claim it improves safety" standard?
"What gives the Supreme Court the right...."
Err, the US Constitution?
I don't understand your issue. In Bruen, the Court decided that the way that the Courts of Appeals approached the 2d Amendment was wrong and set out a test by which laws infringing on gun possession/ownership should be analyzed.
Bruen's analysis seems relatively straight forward: What was the state of the law on the possession and public carrying of deadly weapons when the 2d Amendment was ratified? It is based on two fundamental assumptions. One, the meaning of the Constitution does not vary over time. Second, the founders were trying to enshrine certain freedoms at least at the level they were enjoyed in the various states, i.e., to prevent the new federal government from encroaching on rights beyond the encroachments generally imposed by the states. Given that no rights are truly absolute, looking at what was allowed and what was forbidden in terms of weapon possession provides a very strong clue as to the metes and bounds of the 2d Amendment. If the meaning of the Constitution doesn't vary, then you would limit the review to laws that existed at the time of ratification.
This analysis is legal not historical. It isn't all that different from any other legal analysis that lawyers do every day except that it is limited to a particular time period. Lawyers typically argue by analogy and all legal reasoning is to some degree rhetoric and persuasion.
You see species of this test in First Amendment jurisprudence as well.
So long as we agree there is no historical basis for the Thomas ruling in Bruen, then I agree that I have no legal expertise to challenge what looks to me like arbitrary, outcome-oriented jurisprudence—with an unusual attempt to put off limits unwanted evidence to the contrary of the ruling.
Problem is, you included this:
What was the state of the law on the possession and public carrying of deadly weapons when the 2d Amendment was ratified?
On its face that could be a historical query, or not. You get to keep your ahistorical premise only to the extent you confine that question to legal texts themselves, without reference to case outcomes, or any other contextually relevant queries.
Stephen Lathrop 16 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"So long as we agree there is no historical basis for the Thomas ruling in Bruen, then I agree that I have no legal expertise to challenge what looks to me like arbitrary, outcome-oriented jurisprudence—with an unusual attempt to put off limits unwanted evidence to the contrary of the ruling."
Lathrop - putting "Unwanted evidence " off limits is exactly what you, Stevens and other anti 2A advocates do. (did).
" . . . shall NOT be infringed."
Is it really that hard to understand?
Yes, for the same reason freedom of speech can be abridged by laws on slander, libel, and defamation. These were common law exceptions in 1791, and they are exceptions now too.
You see, they're not abridging (freedom of speech) and not infringing (the right to keep and bear arms). They're not abridging (freedom of speech minus the common law exceptions), and not infringing on (the right to keep and bear arms minus the common law exceptions).
Or something like that. IANAL.
" slander, libel, and defamation" are all punishable after the fact of harming another.
most 2A-violating laws prohibit mere possession before the fact, going well beyond time, place, and manner and in the absence of harm to the innocent.
That is by design.
Laws regarding slander, libel, and defamation are not "exceptions" to the Free Speech clause.
The acts of slander, libel, and defamation are what the law regulates. That speech happens to be the tool commonly used to engage in slander, libel, or defamation (or, for that matter, fraud) doesn't immunize one from criminal or civil consequences of the actual act. If someone could figure out how to engage in slander, libel, defamation without using the tool of "speech" (in the very broad sense that the courts define "speech"), the same laws would apply to that person's act.
WRT the Second Amendment, murder is not an "exception" to the rights protected by the Second Amendment. Murder is illegal regardless if one uses poison, starvation, a firearm, or simply lures (using "speech") the victim into a position of certain death to commit the crime. That one used a single shot musket (which many ardent critics of the Second Amendment grudgingly admit would be protected by the Second Amendment as such weapons existed at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment and would have been recognized as an "arm" at that time) to murder someone does not immunize the murderer - they are still guilty of murder but their possession of a musket was still a right protected by the Second Amendment.
An "exception" to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment would be a law that forbade all people from communicating with more than one person at a time (i.e., a ban on "High Capacity Communications") because someone might use High Capacity Communication to commit fraud. One would have to search far and wide to find a federal judge who would uphold such a law -- just as one should have to search far and wide to find a federal judge who would uphold a ban on "High Capacity Magazines" given SCOTUS precedent.
Freedom of speech is abridged by laws relating to obscenity, threats and disclosure of secret/sensitive information. All of these can be enforced prospectively and prohibitively.
When an administrative agency sits on an application it is often deemed approved or denied by operation of law after a period of time. Congress could set a time limit for decisions about constitutional rights. After six months the decision of the District Court is summarily affirmed and the appellant has the right to seek Supreme Court review.
"Justice delayed is justice denied" only applies to the left's pelvic rights.
There should be a law that an intermediate or Supreme Court has a maximum of 18 months to settle anything before it, or explain in exquisite detail why they're delaying it. This is nothing more than a pocket veto, which is not allowed under the Constitution.
What could possibly be NJ's historical analogue to banning carry in all private cars? Or on all private property minus ones where a "guns allowed" sign is posted?
What is the historical tradition that says a beach is a sensitive place? These are rather frivolous arguments that should be dispensed with easily.
If they are not, then analogies are being read at so high of a generality as to allow specific bans in all public places. IOW, you can carry in public generally, but carry is banned at every specific public place (meaning no carry in public).
There is none, and they know it. That's why the judges just say "There are historical analogues of governments passing laws to ensure safety, and this does the same. Therefore, it passes muster under Bruen." They know it's BS, but unless SCOTUS stops them from doing it, they'll continue.
By that logic, any and every gun control law is acceptable. That simply cannot be consistent with a fair reading of Heller and Bruen.
It’s not, but they don’t care.
Its all about running out the clock, praying the 2A justices croak or retire. A Dem president can then seat some jurists who will dump the Heller/Bruen jurisprudence for some good ol' fashioned interest balancing.
Anyone lately paying attention to how the NJ/NY/CA governors have recently been bragging about the down-trend in gun murders in their jurisdictions? Post Bruen, they promised SCOTUS sanctioned "shall issue" pistol licensing would create "wild west" shootouts every day in Costco check out lines, and suburban intersections. Tens of thousands of new public pistol carriers in our midst and alas, less gun crime.
To be fair, it's now "shall issue" but the permit they issue you is basically worthless.
I am old enough to remember when most states were may issue carry. When shall issue was proposed, in EVERY state opponents claimed that if you allowed people to carry guns, it would be as you describe: people whipping out pistols because someone had 13 items in a 12 item or less aisle. Then nothing happened when the law was passed.
Several years later when almost no state had constitutional carry, when it was proposed, even in shall issue states, opponents would again make the same claim. Then nothing happened when the law was passed.
Even though all states are now nominally shall issue, the restrictions make legal carrying so unlikely that nobody could realistically legally carry. Unless you are walking in a circle on the sidewalk, you are bound to hit an off limits place in these areas and can be arrested.
D.C. is a good example. I go there several times per year and looked into getting a permit. Even if I went through the expense and training, as soon as I left the hotel, I would be in a prohibited area and its not like they have gun checks. If you just went into one off-limits place all day, you would have to leave the gun in the hotel.
I probably would not agree with people commenting here on the merits, but this case does seem to be taking too long.
There are LOTS of 2A cases handed down by the lower courts. The post appears to be noting this one is atypically taking a long time to be decided. It is not even that the court is allegedly deciding it incorrectly. It is not deciding it at all.
It would be interesting to know why this is taking so long.