In the New York ruling known as Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court justices established a new test for Second Amendment cases, focused on whether there’s a historic precedent for the regulation in contention.
So Friday, the opposing attorneys spent much of the hearing trying to show why history dating back to the colonial era was on their side — or why it shouldn’t necessarily carry the weight Bruen afforded it. [Deputy Solicitor General Angela] Cai pointed to other constitutionally protected civil rights, like voting, that historically were only granted to white men.
The Bruen decision also dismissed New York officials’ attempt to ban guns in crowded places, saying areas like Manhattan essentially are one sprawling, crowded place. [Attorney Daniel] Schmutter applied that logic to some of New Jersey’s sensitive place prohibitions.
“All airports really are, are crowded places,” he said.
Attorney Edward Kologi represents Senate President Nicholas Scutari and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin. He sent grumbles through the courtroom, where gun rights advocates filled the spectator benches, just minutes after he began talking.
“Guns only have two functions – to kill or to seriously injure,” Kologi said.
That prompted a testy retort from the judge.
“You forgot the right to self-defense,” Bumb said.
She added: “You’re saying when there’s more guns, there’s more violence. That’s the analysis you want to engage in. But that’s not the record before me. We’re talking about law-abiding citizens who obtain permits. You’re asking this court to presume that those who have valid carry permits will somehow engage in violence, and that is a step taken too far.”
— Dana Difilippo in In Challenge to N.J.’s New Gun Law, Hearing Brings More Debate — But No Decision
