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?
" . . . 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.
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.