Bruen and New Jersey

I am also wondering about our cars, I thought that restriction would be put on hold too, but I didn't see it in ANJRPC's latest alert from Dan...To me, the car thing is in the top 3 most important issues. I have no intentions of hanging out in bars in my mid 60's now - lol so stuff like that is good overall for freedom, but if the car restriction hold, not very good at all. Too much opportunity for people calling the cops on you as u unload and then load your gun "in public" every time you stop. And bad things can happen when Cops show in such circumstances.

Just think pulling up in the Giants stadium parking lot and loading your gun before you go into the stadium, what's wrong with this picture!

And how about if someone wants to high-jack your car at knife point (car jacking are rising now more than ever in USA), I don't think he will wait for you to go in trunk and reload your gun...So he gets your car nd your gun....

If we don't win on this point, this entire effort is a partial failure IMO.

Outside one's home/property, your auto may likely the place one spends most of their time for many.

combat auto said:

I am also wondering about our cars, I thought that restriction would be put on hold too, but I didn't see it in ANJRPC's latest alert from Dan...To me, the car thing is in the top 3 most important issues. I have no intentions of hanging out in bars in my mid 60's now - lol so stuff like that is good overall for freedom, but if the car restriction hold, not very good at all. Too much opportunity for people calling the cops on you as u unload and then load your gun "in public" every time you stop. And bad things can happen when Cops show in such circumstances.

Just think pulling up in the Giants stadium parking lot and loading your gun before you go into the stadium, what's wrong with this picture!

And how about if someone wants to high-jack your car at knife point (car jacking are rising now more than ever in USA), I don't think he will wait for you to go in trunk and reload your gun...So he gets your car nd your gun....

If we don't win on this point, this entire effort is a partial failure IMO.

Outside one's home/property, your auto may likely the place one spends most of their time for many.

Click to expand...

I got a response from Scott:



Scott L. Bach
To:xx

Tue, Jan 31 at 11:10 AM

You can carry in vehicles. We will have additional info in an upcoming alert, including vehicles.

Here's what got denied.

TRO Status – SIEGEL v. PLATKIN

1. “TRO DENIED Subpart 6 (prohibiting handguns “within 100 feet of a place for a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event”)”. This was pulled from consideration for a TRO by plaintiffs as they did not see this becoming an issue during this brief time frame.

2. TRO DENIED Subpart 11 (prohibiting handguns “at youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5: 17-1, during and immediately preceding in following the conduct of the event . The court ruled that this would be denied for now due to its similarity to established precedent cited in bruin regarding schools. However it will be evaluated further at the preliminary injunction phase of the case.

3. TRO DENIED Subpart 20 (prohibiting handguns at “an airport or public transportation hub”). This like part 2 was denied based on lack of standing due this location not being visited frequently enough by plaintiffs to show a need for immediate relief.

4. TRO DENIED Subpart 23 (prohibiting handguns at “ a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose“). See part 2 and 3.


5. “TRO DENIED Subpart 9 (prohibition on carrying handguns at a zoo only).” This part was denied because plaintiffs couldn't show that they would suffer harm without intervention by the court as this was not a part of their daily lives. Furthermore many of these (privately owned) places already had a policy banning carrying in place.


6. “TRO DENIED Subpart 22 (prohibiting handguns in a “facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families or Department of Health, other than a healthcare facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services).” This was also denied because they could not prove that the law was the only reason they couldn't carry as many facilities already had bans in place.

7. “TRO DENIED Subpart 21 (prohibiting handguns at “a healthcare facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, mental psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, or residential healthcare facility“).” The same as 5 and 6.

Here's the rest of it that includes the partial deny on playgrounds.

8. “TRO GRANTED Subpart 18 (prohibiting handguns at “a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment in recreational venues located within the casino property).” Over here the court ruled that barring judicial relief there was a threat of immediate harm as plaintiffs stated that they did frequent these locations regularly. Furthermore the state could not prove that there was clear historical precedent to ban carry in these locations. As such relief was granted.

9. “TRO GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Subpart 10 (prohibiting handguns at “a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety”).” Finally for this part we got only partial relief as the court ruled that for now it would consider playgrounds to be similar to schools and as such accepted as a sensitive place under Bruin. For the rest of the statute the court ruled that while the state was able to find some laws from the 1800’s where a few large cities did bar firearms from public parks (ie nyc in central park). Accordingly the judge wrote “Thus, while there may be some historical precedent for restricting public carry in parks located in densely populated areas, Subpart 10 goes much further. It forbids firearms in any park “owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit.”, also pre bruin other courts have found this to be unconstitutional. Combining this with the fact that plaintiffs did in fact frequent these locations it granted the TRO.

Another big win that came out of today's proceedings is that the TRO is now in place until a preliminary injunction ruling is decided.

In conclusion, I just want to remind you that the fact that some parts of the law were not blocked at this stage is not proof that the court deemed those parts of the law to be constitutional. In fact attorneys for the plaintiffs are hopeful that at the arguments for a preliminary injunction many other parts will be struck down. As always please make sure to keep donating to our amazing local gun rights organizations that are fighting the good fight on our behalf. These lawsuits require an immense amount of funding and they can't do it without our help.

Here's a detailed chart.