Federal Court Issues TRO Preventing New Jersey From Enforcing New “Sensitive Place” Laws
Yesterday, in an NRA-ILA backed lawsuit, a federal court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that restricts New Jersey from enforcing several so called “sensitive place” bans.
In December, after the same federal court struck New Jersey’s justifiable need requirement in another NRA-ILA backed lawsuit, the state passed A4769, which declares the entire state to be a sensitive place, increases permit fees, uses social media posts as grounds to deny permits, and requires gun owners to acquire insurance that does not appear to exist in the state. NRA-ILA responded by filing a lawsuit with our state affiliate, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seeking a TRO against the provisions of the law that immediately took effect.
That TRO was granted yesterday, along with a 48-page opinion from the court refuting New Jersey’s arguments in support of the new “sensitive place” restrictions. The court went as far as calling some of New Jersey’s interpretations of the Second Amendment “wishful thinking.”
- Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process - Choose "Select & Save" OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
- Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
- Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
- Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
The TRO prohibits the state from enforcing the bans (against people with concealed carry licenses) at parks, beaches, recreational facilities/areas, libraries, museums, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, casinos, private property without the owner’s consent, and vehicles. The opinion also clarifies the multi-use property issue. Thus, when a single piece of property, such as a strip mall, has one prohibited place on it, such as a medical facility, then only the medical facility, not the entire strip mall, is prohibited.
The case is captioned Siegel v. Platkin.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.
Article by NRA-ILA