Koons v. Platkin

• Decision Date: 16 May 2023
• Docket Number: Civil 22-7464 (RMB/AMD),22-7463 (RMB/AMD)
• Parties: RONALD KOONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW PLATKIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, and PATRICK CALLAHAN, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, Defendants, and NICHOLAS SCUTARI, President of the New Jersey Senate, and CRAIG COUGHLIN, Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, Intervenors-Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

RONALD KOONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW PLATKIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, and PATRICK CALLAHAN, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, Defendants, and NICHOLAS SCUTARI, President of the New Jersey Senate, and CRAIG COUGHLIN, Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, Intervenors-Defendants.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

May 16, 2023

David D. Jensen, Esq. David Jensen PLLC On behalf of the Koons Plaintiffs

Daniel L. Schmutter, Esq. Hartman & Winnicki, P.C. On behalf of the Siegel Plaintiffs

Angela Cai, Deputy Solicitor General

Jean Reilly, Assistant Attorney General David Chen, Deputy Attorney General Amy Chung, Deputy Attorney General Viviana Hanley, Deputy Attorney General Chandini Jha, Deputy Attorney General Samuel Rubinstein, Deputy Attorney General Office of the New Jersey Attorney General On behalf of Defendants Platkin and Callahan

Leon J. Sokol Cullen and Dykman, LLP Edward J. Kologi Kologi Simitz, Counselors at Law On behalf of Intervenors-Defendants Scutari and Coughlin

OPINION

Renée Marie Bumb Chief United States District Judge Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND……………………………….6

A. The Koons Plaintiffs' Narrow Constitutional Challenge to Select Sensitive Place Designations in Chapter 131…………………………………...…………6

B. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Broad Constitutional Challenges to Chapter 131 and Preexisting State Firearm Laws……………………………………….……...…8

C. Plaintiffs' Pending Motions for a Preliminary Injunction…………….…….…9

D. The State's Opposition to a Preliminary Injunction………………………….13

III. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS……………………………………… .......... 13

A. Procedural Legal Standard for a Preliminary Injunction…………………….13

B. Substantive Legal Standards under Bruen……………………………………..14

IV. ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………….….19

A. Overview of New Jersey's Firearm Permitting Scheme………………………19

1. Firearm Purchaser Identification Card………………………………..19

2. Permit to Purchase a Handgun……………………….….……….……20

3. Permit to Carry a Handgun in Public……………………………….…20

B. Chapter 131's Amendments to New Jersey's Firearm Permitting Scheme….21

C. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Constitutional Challenges to Chapter 131's New Requirements……………………………………………………………………23

1. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Standing to Bring a Second Amendment Challenge to Chapter 131's New Permitting Scheme..….……………25

2. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Standing to Bring a First Amendment Challenge to Chapter 131's Carry Permit Application Requirements….….….…32

D. Constitutionality of Chapter 131's Application and Permit Process.….….…35

1. Historical Tradition: Chapter 131's Statutory Disqualifiers………….36

a. English History of Disarmament………………………………38

b. Colonial American History of Disarmament…………………41

c. State Constitutional Convention Proposals…………………...45

d. Post-Ratification Disarmament Laws…………………………46

e. The State's “Unvirtuous Citizen” Justification for Chapter 131's Statutory Disqualifiers…………………………………...49

f. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Void-for-Vagueness Challenge to Chapter 131's Public Safety Statutory Disqualifiers……………………52

2. Historical Tradition: Chapter 131's Application Process……………56

a. Historical Laws on Reputable Persons Endorsement………...58

b. Historical Laws Requiring In-Person Meeting………………..62

c. Historical Laws Allowing Licensing Authorities to Request “Such Other Information”……………………………………..64

E. The Constitutionality of Chapter 131's New Fee Schedule………………….66

F. Chapter 131's Insurance Mandate……………………………………………..70

1. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Standing to Challenge the Insurance Mandate...72

2. Ripeness of the Siegel Plaintiffs' Challenge to the Insurance Mandate…………………………………………………………………74

a. The Adversity of the Parties' Interests…………………………75

b. Conclusiveness of Judgment…………………………………...76

c. Practical Utility of Judgment…………………………………..78

3. Constitutionality of the Insurance Mandate…………………………..79

a. The Second Amendment's Text……………………………….80

b. Historical Tradition: Chapter 131's Insurance Mandate……..81

i. Historical Surety Laws………………………………….82

ii. Tort Law: Strict Liability against Gun Owners……….87

G. New Jersey's “Sensitive Place” Laws………………………………………….89

1. Plaintiffs' Standing to Challenge Chapter 131's Handgun Ban in “Sensitive Places” and Related New Jersey Laws that Pre-Date Bruen……………………………………………………………………..89

a. Whether Plaintiffs Have Shown a Prospective Injury that is Concrete, Particularized, and Imminent………………………92

b. Plaintiffs' Demonstrated Injury is Likely Caused by the State…………………………………………………………….102

c. Plaintiffs' Demonstrated Injury is Redressable by Judicial Relief……………………………………………………….…..103

2. Constitutionality of Chapter 131's Handgun Ban at the Challenged “Sensitive Places”………………………………………………….….106

a. Government Property…………………………………………106

i. The Second Amendment Generally Applies on Government-Owned Property………………………..107

ii. Government Buildings as “Sensitive Places” Where Carrying Firearms can be Prohibited Consistent with the Second Amendment…………………………………..115

b. Private Property: Chapter 131's Default Rule Prohibiting Firearms unless the Property Owner Expressly Consents…..117

i. The Default Rule and the Second Amendment's Text…………………………………….118

ii. Historical Tradition: The Default Rule……………...131

iii. The Siegel Plaintiffs' First Amendment Challenge to the Default Rule……………………………………………145

iv. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Challenge to the Default Rule……………………………………………149

c. Chapter 131's Enumerated “Sensitive Places” (and Related State Statutes that Pre-Date Bruen) Laws……………………………………………………………152

i. Public Gatherings, Demonstrations, and Events Requiring a Government Permit……………………..152

ii. Zoos…………………………………………………….168

iii. Parks, Beaches, Recreational Facilities, Playgrounds, and State Parks………………………………………...172

iv. Youth Sports Events…………………………………..178

v. Public Libraries and Museums……………………….179

vi. Bars and Restaurants Serving Alcohol……………….181

vii. Entertainment Facilities……………………………….182 viii. Casinos (and N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69D-1.13)……185

ix. Airports and Transportation Hubs……………………186

x. Health Care Facilities (Medical Offices and Ambulatory Care Facilities)…………………………..194

xi. Public Film Sets………………………………………..197

xii. Prohibition on Functional Firearms in Vehicles…….198

H. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Challenge to Chapter 131's Exemptions for Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys General………………206

I. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Remaining Void-for-Vagueness Challenges to Chapter 131…………………………………………………………………….210

J. The Siegel Plaintiffs' Second Amendment Challenge to New Jersey's Fish and Game Restrictions………………………………………………………..216

K. Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs…………………...……………………………221

L. Harm to Other Interested Parties and the Public……………………………223

V. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….229

I. INTRODUCTION

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. For more than 200 years after the Second Amendment's ratification, the meaning of these words went largely unaddressed by the Supreme Court of the United States. That all changed in 2008.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment guarantees a private, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). At its core, the Heller Court found the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id. at 635. Two years later, the Supreme Court found the Second Amendment's “right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” and ruled the Amendment applies equally to the federal government and states. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 778, 791 (2010).

This past summer, the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen held the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home and allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense. 597 U.S. ____, ____, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2122 (2022). In doing so, the Bruen Court struck down as unconstitutional a law requiring law-abiding citizens to make a separate showing of need to carry a handgun in public. Id. at 2156. Bruen invalidated the law because “it prevent[ed] law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Id. Bruen also changed the landscape for Second Amendment challenges to firearm laws: “when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct,” the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct and the government must then justify its firearm law by showing “the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2126.

In Bruen's wake, New Jersey's Legislature sprang into action, amending the State's firearm laws in many ways. First, the Legislature dropped the State's firearm law requiring a person to show “justifiable need” to carry a handgun in public for self-defense-a requirement that Bruen explicitly struck down. Second, the Legislature created a list of 25 “sensitive places” where firearms are banned under threat of criminal prosecution. These places range from government-owned buildings, libraries, entertainment facilities, and restaurants that serve alcohol to all private property unless prior consent to carry is given. In enacting the sensitive places law, the...