What are anti-gun politicians to do when the restrictive carry laws their state passed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision keeps being whittled away by the courts? If you’re New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin and Gov. Phil Murphy, the answer is to find other people to do your dirty work of creating additional “gun-free” zones for you.
For some background, following the Bruen ruling, which struck down New York’s restrictive carry law, New Jersey officials realized their laws were equally unconstitutional. But instead of following the intent ruling, they passed more unconstitutional laws banning carry of firearms at entertainment venues, public gatherings, schools, healthcare facilities, government buildings and any establishment that serves alcohol.
Still, as we reported last week, following the Bruen ruling, New Jersey citizens have been taking advantage of the opportunity to apply for permits. In fact, more than 41,000 New Jerseyans applied for carry permits in the two years since the court decision. That number is more than 25-times the number of citizens—1,588—who applied for a permit in the two years prior to the ruling.
Apparently that hasn’t set well with Murphy and Platkin, who are encouraging business and property owners to post no-gun signs on their property since the government is having little success at limiting concealed carry by lawful New Jerseyans.
On August 9, Platkin posted on X, formerly Twitter, “No matter what you’ve heard, here’s a fact: You CAN display signs prohibiting guns in and around your establishment. For those who wish to declare their property a ‘gun-free zone’ by downloading a decal or requesting one for free, visit njoag.gov/gunfreezone.”
Doubling down to get citizens to restrict carry opportunities instead of the government doing so, Platkin has also posted the information on the AG website. “No matter what you’ve heard,” reads the notice, “owners of public establishments CAN display signs prohibiting guns on and around their property.”
The AG has also announced that his office is making gun-free zones stickers available to anyone who wants them.
“The decals can help ensure the increase in people carrying guns doesn’t lead to a higher rate of shootings and gun deaths like those experienced in states with less-protective gun laws than New Jersey,” Platkin said, “New Jerseyans should be able to go about their daily lives without the risk of senseless gun violence. The simple placement of these decals can offer some sense of security to customers and give business owners a means to clearly state their policy.”
As we have reported before, so-called “gun-free” zones aren’t really free of guns. Only law-abiding citizens follow such laws, leaving violent criminals to carry whatever guns they want wherever they want to carry them.
In fact, research shows that 98% of mass murders from 2014 to 2022 occurred in such “gun-free” zones. Consequently, they would be better referred to as “kill anyone you want with no chance of being stopped” zones.
In the end, Platkin’s and Murphy’s attempt to curb carry by having private property owners do their bidding might be successful since it is legal for those property owners to ban carry on their premises. Still, it’s hard to think of a more blatant backdoor attempt to circumvent an important court ruling to restrict the carry of firearms for self-defense purposes.
While Murphy and Platkin should be ashamed for such a ploy, it’s likely they’re not—and that’s a shame in itself.
The simple placement of these decals can offer some sense of security to customers… nope I’ll keep a real sense of security and continue to ignore these stupid signs and carry.
Ross: “sense of security”. The key word is “some”.
It is far from total security.
“It is far from total security.”
The law addresses “feelz”, which is the whole game.
Laws deter only honest people, and are mostly intended to provide a mechanism for punishment, after the violation is committed.
Correct, they can display signs and restrict firearms. It is private property and not limited like public areas. However, while I can’t speak for all states, in Wisconsin, property owners who display signs preventing the legal right to carry a firearm for their own protection lose certain legal protections against civil suits in the event of any harm that may befall them if a criminal entered with a weapon.
That private property argument gets tricky when they invite the public in. Can always ask you to leave if they don’t like it but can’t get behind businesses or corporations being able to say I can’t have rights on their turf (extreme end of the argument yes but sometimes what is needed)
SAFEupstateFML,
I have the same sentiment.
Do private property owners, that invite the public in to their property, have the right to discriminate against other protected civil rights? Is it just legally bearing of arms, or can they prohibit people based on appearance, religion, ethnicity, gendery stuff?
Varies on issues and states involved but sometimes yes especially if it hasn’t gone to court.
Only the government can violate your civil rights, except for acts by businesses that constitute “invidious discrimination.” Gun owners are not a protected class. Race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, and national origin are the typical categories protected. Disability discrimination is also banned. These are established by statute and not common law.
SAFE (and uncommon, in his response),
Yes, and my PERSONAL feelings are the same as yours. I pretty much carry, everywhere, and have for well over 40 years (and while I jumped through the hoops “back in the day” and got a CCW, that was just an invitation to regular proctological exams), so I just said “Eff ’em”, and now I carry in compliance with the permit granted to me by God and the protection of the 2A prohibition on the government “infringing” those rights.
But I also feel very strongly about OTHER individual rights, like property rights. No, I don’t think a business or an individual surrender their 1A rights, or rights of free association, just because they offer to do business for profit. I just make note of which businesses do so, and never frequent them. While I don’t forfeit my rights by doing business with them, I DO have to respect their rights when I enter their property . . . so I just go elsewhere.
As absolutist as I am about 2A rights, I am equally absolutist about 1A rights, and the right of free association. If I were a business owner who, just as an example, chose to have a policy that I didn’t serve Leftist idiots (sorry for the redundancy!), I have every right to do that. If a Leftist idiot business owner (Oh, wow!! A redundancy incorporated into an oxymoron!! Lamp, you’re hitting it HARD, now!!) chooses to announce that he ‘won’t serve my kind’, I’m fine with that . . . I’d rather give my money to someone more compatible with my worldview, anyway. AND, they have to acknowledge MY right to bar them from my business, too. If I ever owned a LGS (now that would be a FUN retirement business!!), I have EVERY RIGHT to post a big sign saying “No Dimocrats allowed!” Don’t like it?? Go spend your money somewhere else.
We had this same thing about 8 years ago when we passed permitless carry in MS. City and county police were handing out no-gun signs by the truckload, and they were popping up all over the place. That lasted about a year, and now it’s very rare to see one. Store owners, private medical clinics, etc. realized just how idiotic it was.
POTG should gather all the signs they can and have a sign burning.
Posting such a sign should also come with implied liability (of the property owner) in the event of an incident.
Also, the property owner’s only COA for violators is to trespass.
I’m guessing neither one of those is on the AG’s web site.
300Blackout,
Agree that, IF the store owner deprives me of my ability to have the tools to protect myself, they should bear liability for that (it would be nice to make Leftist idiots actually DEAL with their own stupidity, for a change) – that is simply common sense.
Not quite accurate that ‘trespassing’ someone is the only remedy. Most such statutes require that the business owner ask the carrier to leave, first, but if they don’t, MANY of such laws specify that the refusal to do so is a crime, and can subject the carrier to arrest . . . just sayin’.
“private” property ban didn’t do to well in NY Federal district court or the 2nd circuit. Be a shame if NJ causes a circuit split.
SAFEupstateFML,
That New York law was different because it banned carrying handguns on ALL private properties by default unless the property owners affirmatively declared that they allowed carrying handguns on their property.
Oh I know, I just don’t recognize the rights of businesses open to the public to regulate rights beyond asking someone to leave especially when they have no security or responsibility towards unarmed clients. Besides it will take a lot of related but hair splitting cases to limit the practice and there is always the possibility of judicial over stepping re scope that can create fun issues.
2nd Circuit Rules Lawful Gun Ownership Doesn’t Justify a Warrantless Search > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/08/13/2nd-circuit-rules-lawful-gun-ownership-doesnt-justify-a-warrantless-search/
*** Always carry. Always. ***
Understand?
This should be entitled “N.J. Officials Seek Property Owner Injury And Death.”
1. 0ver ~97% of mass shootings happen in ‘gun free zones’ (which includes business/property where owners have prohibited firearms, schools, etc…).
2. Over ~97% of ALL violent crime happens in areas where ‘guns are prohibited’, or where ‘victims’ are believed by the violent criminal not to have a firearm.
In short, ‘gun free zones’/’no guns permitted’ areas specifically attract violent mentally ill people who want to seriously injure or kill those in the ‘gun free zones’/’no guns permitted’ area.
Don’t forget that they also force people who want to patronize the business and obey the signs to store their guns in their vehicle, increasing the risk of theft.
“declare their property a ‘gun-free zone’”
I hereby DECLARE my bank account to have 10 million dollars!!!
Wait, what?
TSC has a sign on their doors welcoming CCW customers.
“New Jerseyans should be able to go about their daily lives without the risk of senseless gun violence. The simple placement of these decals can offer some sense of security …”
So, a good and decent person who uses a firearm in righteous and legally justified self-defence is, “senseless gun violence.” Got it.
And a, “sense of security,” is somehow better than actual security. Got it.
NY Gov Kathy Hochul made it perfectly clear when pressing their post Bruen antigun law. As far as she is concerned YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
And we intend to be as big of a problem as is needed.
Fortunately in VA these signs carry no weight of law. Only if failing to leave when asked does it get elevated to trespassing. So we all ignore the signs completely; concealed means concealed. All that said though, in states such as TX where the signs carry the weight of law, this means good honest folks are forced to leave their gats in their cars. An observant bad guy could reconnoiter parking lots and get an idea of which cars have guns left in them and thus these policies put more stolen guns on the street.
Strange how the “bake the cake” crowd is all for this.
Sorry, no public accommodation can apply this.
“Still, it’s hard to think of a more blatant backdoor attempt to circumvent an important court ruling to restrict the carry of firearms for self-defense purposes.”
How is this even a “thing”? NJ didn’t just invent the idea of gun prohibition signs at businesses. What makes this iteration unique?
“It is far from total security.”
The law addresses “feelz”, which is the whole game.
Laws deter only honest people, and are mostly intended to provide a mechanism for punishment, after the violation is committed.
ordered a few .. going to use them as range targets