Koons v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 09 January 2023
• Docket Number: CIVIL 22-7464 (RMB/EAP)
• Parties: RONALD KOONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM REYNOLDS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

RONALD KOONS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM REYNOLDS, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 22-7464 (RMB/EAP)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 9, 2023

David D. Jensen, David Jensen PLLC On behalf of Plaintiffs

Angela Cai, Jean Reilly, David Chen, Amy Chung, Viviana Hanley, Chandini Jha, Samuel L. Rubinstein, On behalf of New Jersey State Defendants and Defendant Annemarie Taggart (in her official capacity as the Prosecutor of Sussex County, New Jersey)

James F. Ferguson, Atlantic County Department of Law

1

On behalf of Defendant William Reynolds (in his official capacity as the Prosecutor of Atlantic County, New Jersey)

Howard L. Goldberg On behalf of Defendant Grace Macaulay (in her official capacity as the Prosecutor of Camden County, New Jersey)

OPINION

Renee Marie Bumb, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by individual plaintiffs Ronald Koons, Nicholas Gaudio, and Jeffrey Muller, as well as the following four organizations that each such individual is a member of: Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, and New Jersey Second Amendment Society (together, “Plaintiffs”) against the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, Patrick Callahan (both “New Jersey State Defendants” or “State Defendants”), and County Prosecutors William Reynolds (Atlantic County Prosecutor), Grace C. Macaulay (Camden County Prosecutor), and Annemarie Taggart (Sussex County Prosecutor) (together, “Defendants”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for a temporary restraining order will be GRANTED, and the Court will RESERVE its decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

2

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns a constitutional challenge on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds to newly enacted New Jersey legislation that restricts the possession of a firearm in any location classified by the state legislature as a “sensitive place” and certain other restrictions on carrying functional firearms in vehicles. Plaintiffs, who have permits from the State of New Jersey to conceal carry handguns, contend that just until a few short weeks ago, persons in this state with a permit were generally free to carry a handgun “as they went about their business,” with limited exceptions for specific locations including schools, colleges, universities, other educational institutions, state parks, casinos, and any “federal facility” as such term is defined by applicable federal law. [Docket No. 9 (hereafter, “Pls.' Br.”), at 3 (citations omitted).]

The New Jersey legislation at issue here was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, holding “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” 597 U.S., 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2122 (2022). The Bruen Court struck down a New York statute that required an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun to demonstrate “proper cause,” and, in doing so, acknowledged the unconstitutionality of analogous statutes in other states that required a “showing of some additional special need,” such as New Jersey's law that required an applicant to show “justifiable need” for a permit to carry. Id. at 2124 n.2.

3

A. Plaintiffs' Complaint and Request for Emergent Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs allege that “[a]t first, the State of New Jersey complied with the Court's directive” in Bruen, by abandoning its “justifiable need” requirement. [Pls.' Br. at 1.] But on December 22, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Chapter 131 of the 2022 Laws of New Jersey that imposed a new set of requirements, many of which became effective immediately, including declaring certain locations as “sensitive places” where firearms are prohibited, even by carriers with permits, as well as a ban on carrying functional firearms in vehicles. Plaintiffs decry the challenged legislation as declaring war on the Second Amendment because it essentially renders the entire State of New Jersey a “sensitive place” where firearms are prohibited. [Pls.' Br. at 1 (New Jersey “has declared most of the State to be off limits to carry through the artifice of ‘sensitive places'”).]

Of note is the fact that Plaintiffs' current challenge does not attack the entire piece of legislation. As Defendants point out and Plaintiffs do not challenge here, other relevant provisions of Chapter 131 strengthened the criteria used to determine whether an applicant is qualified to purchase or carry firearms. 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 2. The chapter also enhanced requirements for character references and instituted a firearms safety course requirement. Id. §§ 2, 3. Further safety-related changes to carry requirements are set to take effect in seven months: Section 4 requires that anyone carrying a handgun in public obtain liability insurance, and Sections 5 and 6 set out requirements for the safe carry of handguns. Id.

4

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert a cause of action against each Defendant for Deprivation of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that each Defendant has the authority to enforce the State's criminal laws, including Chapter 131 subparts 12, 15, 17, and 24 of Section 7(a), as well as Section 7(b)(1)'s prohibition on carrying functional firearms in vehicles, notwithstanding that these provisions are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment). [Docket No. 1 ¶¶ 67-69.] Defendants do not oppose their authority to enforce these laws. In fact, at oral argument, the State confirmed that Defendants would not agree to forgo prosecuting Plaintiffs for violations of these provisions. [Transcript of Oral Argument held on January 5, 2023 (“Tr.”), at 27 (The Court: “Is the State willing to agree not to prosecute each of these plaintiffs?” Ms. Cai: “No.”).]

On December 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Docket No. 8.] On December 26, 2022, the Court entered an Order requiring Defendants to appear and Show Cause why the relief sought should not be granted, as well as setting a briefing schedule for this motion. [Docket No. 13.] On January 5, 2023, the Court held oral argument.

B. The Challenged Legislation and Potential Penalties of Conviction

Section 7(a) of the newly enacted legislation lists 25 categories of locations where it is a third-degree offense “to knowingly carry a firearm.” 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131. The punishment for a crime of the third degree is imprisonment for up to five

5

years. See N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:43-6(a)(3), 2C:44-1(f)(1)(d). In the current suit, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the law's enforcement of the following enumerated “sensitive places” set forth in Section 7(a):

(1) Subpart 12 (prohibiting firearms in “a publicly owned or leased library or museum”);

(2) Subpart 15 (prohibiting firearms in “a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises”);

(3) Subpart 17 (prohibiting firearms in “a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held”); and

(4) Subpart 24 (prohibiting firearms in “private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued permit under N.J.S.2C:58-4, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the authority to keep or carry a firearm established under subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-6”).

2022 N.J. Laws c. 131.

In addition, Section 7(b) of the legislation imposes an additional “sensitive place” restriction that bans functional firearms in vehicles, more specifically, it makes it a fourth-degree offense to transport or carry a firearm “while in a vehicle in New Jersey, unless the firearm is unloaded and contained in a closed and securely fastened case, gunbox, or locked unloaded in the trunk of the vehicle.” Id. The maximum sentence for this crime is 18 months' imprisonment. See N.J.S.A. §§

6

2C:43-6(a)(4), 2C:44-1(f)(1)(e). Plaintiffs highlight the unconstitutional effect of Section 7(b): that permitted firearm carriers such as themselves now must transport a firearm in a vehicle the same way as someone who does not have a concealed carry permit from the State. [Pls.' Br. at 8 (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(g)).]

In their submissions, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the “sensitive places” and vehicle carry restrictions both carve out exemptions for certain persons (law enforcement, members of the Armed Forces, airport security officers, arson investigators, nuclear site guards, etc.). [Id. at 89 (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6).] They do not challenge those carve-outs. However, Plaintiffs contend that the only exemption the law gives for an ordinary, law-abiding, private citizen is authorization to “store a handgun or ammunition within a locked lock box and out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area.” 2022 N.J. Laws c. 131 § 7(c)(2). A holder of a valid and lawfully issued permit to carry can “transport a concealed handgun in the immediate area surrounding [his] vehicle within a prohibited parking lot for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving the handgun within a locked lock box in the vehicle's trunk or other place...