I love the last paragraph of this article.
The state argues that history supports disarming citizens to prevent the “violent disruption of government functions.” That’s an odd argument to make in the country whose founders violently disrupted the English government’s functions, won their independence, and then wrote the Second Amendment to ensure the people retained the means to resist tyranny.
PHILADELPHIA — Delivered on time and under the specified word count, all parties in the consolidated case challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive place” restrictions submitted their briefs to the Third Circuit en banc court on July 8.
In February of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reheard oral arguments in the Koons v. Davenport (formerly Koons v. Platkin) case challenging New Jersey’s post-Bruen “carry-killer” law, which was designed to effectively nullify concealed carry throughout the state.
After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wolford v. Lopez on June 25 of this year, the court ordered concise supplemental briefs from all parties the very next day. The Wolford case challenged some of Hawaii’s near-identical carry restrictions, which were also passed in response to the Bruen ruling.
Briefs from the parties include references to both Wolford (place-based restrictions) and Hemani (prohibitions with regard to the usage of controlled substances).
The brief for the Siegel plaintiffs (authored by Daniel Schmutter and Paul Clement) observed that “Much of New Jersey’s defense of the sweeping provisions challenged here depends on exactly the kind of exceedingly high-level historical analysis that Hemani and Wolford emphatically rejected.”
By News2A Team
