US District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb extended her injunction against New Jersey’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Phil Murphy-led law attempting to block New Jersey citizens from carrying firearms virtually anywhere within the State. Her extension blocks
restriction[s] on permitted gun owners from carrying concealed weapons in public parks, on beaches, and in casinos.
Her prior injunction already blocks enforcement of those parts of the law that banned
guns from being carried in “sensitive locations,” including public libraries; museums; entertainment venues like stadiums, arenas, and amusement parks; bars; restaurants where alcohol is served; public parks; beaches; playgrounds; and airports and public transportation hubs.
That’s all to the good. However, I disagree with the rationale for her lately extension of her injunction.
“Bumb cited [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v] Bruen and said that New Jersey had failed to supply sufficient evidence that some of the “sensitive places” where firearms are banned are rooted in “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme Court is wrong on this. Historical tradition as a legal standard gives already extant tradition the force of law instead of leaving it an informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means. Further, using historical tradition as the standard prevents the establishment of new traditions as informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means.
Keep it simple: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From Johnson’s Dictionary, 10th ed, pub 1792, Infringe: 1: To violate; to break laws or contracts.
From The American Heritage Dictionary, current: Infringe: 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate
Nothing material has changed in the meaning of the term. There’s no need to read anything else into it.