A federal judge may’ve intervened and blocked key portions of Governor Murphy’s latest gun control package pending litigation, Save Jerseyans, but Trenton Leftists remain undeterred.
On Wednesday, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin tweeted advice to New Jersey bar and restaurant owners; specifically, he advised them that they have the right to display signs prohibiting firearms ahead of this weekend’s Eagles vs. Giants playoffs showdown.
“No matter what you’ve heard, here’s a fact: you CAN display signs prohibiting guns in and around your establishment,” tweeted Platkin. “Whether they’re sporting midnight green or rooting for Big Blue, let’s keep all fans and patrons safe this weekend.”
🚨ATTENTION NJ BAR AND RESTAURANT OWNERS🚨
No matter what you've heard, here's a fact: you CAN display signs prohibiting guns in and around your establishment. Whether they're sporting midnight green or rooting for Big Blue, let's keep all fans and patrons safe this weekend.
— Attorney General Matt Platkin (@NewJerseyOAG) January 17, 2023
In other words? He wants bar owners to bar legal gun owners.
Setting aside the absorbing of suggesting out-of-nowhere that Eagles and Giants fans are highly likely to shoot one another (!), the 60-page federal court injunction temporarily bars New Jersey from stopping concealed carry permit holders bringing firearms into bars and restaurants among other places prohibited by the new law. Concerning the point at issue, Judge Bumb wrote that the Murphy Administration “presented no historical support to permit New Jersey to restrict concealed carry in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.”
“[T]he effect of the challenged provisions is an immediate constitutional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public,” explained Bumb. “Plaintiffs can no longer exercise this right by carrying their firearms at locations they were accustomed to visiting in their day-to-day lives and in ways law-abiding gun owners routinely do. Additionally, if they were to do so, Plaintiffs would face an ‘imminent’ threat of prosecution, which the State acknowledged at oral argument. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied the irreparable injury prong justifying injunctive relief.”
Platkin’s tweet is, ironically, highlighting the distinction between a statewide government-enforced ban on concealed carry in certain spaces (which the courts have thankfully shelved for now) and the personal decisions of individual private property owners.
Isn’t that what having a Bill of Rights is all about?
