It’s been eleven months since oral arguments were made in front of the 3rd Circuit in the now-combined Koons/Siegel v. Platkin case challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” that are off-limits to concealed carry of firearms.
Many are wondering what is taking the 3rd Circuit panel so long to produce their decision. It’s entirely possible they were waiting to align with rulings from other Circuits on similar issues. A letter from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin underscores that possibility.
The letter, dated September 10, calls out the recent decision from the 9th Circuit Appeals court on Hawaii’s and California’s challenges to ‘sensitive places’ in their respective Bruen-response laws. The decision was widely criticized for failing to properly apply the Bruen precedent.
In an attempt to persuade the 3rd Circuit, Platkin writes:
…the Ninth Circuit largely upheld place-based firearms restrictions that parallel New Jersey’s laws. The Court held that challengers were unlikely to succeed on their Second Amendment challenges to prohibitions on firearms in many sensitive places…
He also furthers the erroneous reasoning of the 9th Circuit which attempted to find historical analogues in the most miniscule of prohibitions which were not widespread:
The Ninth Circuit underscored key methodological points. It explained that “a small number of laws, even localized laws”—including from the era of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification—can establish a “historical tradition of banning firearms at sensitive places,” if their constitutionality “went undisputed in the courts in the Nation’s early years” or faced challenges “that courts quickly rejected.” Id. at *11-12. It found that proffered “historical regulations need not be a close match to the challenged law; they need only evince a principle” within which the challenged law fits. Id. *12 (citing Rahimi). And it unequivocally held that the “lack of comprehensive government security is not a determinative factor.” Id. at *12.
Although New Jersey has had its day in court, it continues to try to influence the outcome of this case by citing unconstitutional opinions in other cases.
