First, I want to thank the sponsor of the video that’s the Sonoran Desert Institute. With more than 350 million firearms in the US, the time has never been better to learn how to be a gunsmith. SDI offers online firearms technology education with hands-on labs and materials shipped right to your door. There’s a ton of different topics to choose from, from armors courses to shooting sports management, ballistics, gunsmithing, even drone classes. There’s a whole bunch on there. You can check them out at SDI.edu slash G&G and turn your passion for firearms into a successful career.

Check them out today thanks to SDI. Also, my birthday’s coming up in two weeks. I’d like to see how close we can come to seven hundred and twenty-five thousand subscribers. I know it’s a big ask. Let’s see what we can do because seven twenty-five is my birthday July 25th and appreciate y’all. All right, so Firearms Policy Coalition filed this case back in 2021 challenging the justifiable need requirement that New Jersey had for its firearms permit process. And yesterday they came to this consent decree because Bruin, right, because text, history, tradition.

And there is no text in the Second Amendment that says people need to have a justifiable need to defend themselves. There’s no justifiable need requirement in any historical analog. So let me show you what came down in court yesterday. The plaintiffs are Daniel Francisco, Ori Katzen, and Firearms Policy Coalition versus Peter Cook Jr., who is the Chief of Police of Englishtown Burrow Police Department. William Wicker, who is the Chief of Police of the Oredell Burrow Police Department. Matthew Plattkin, who is the Attorney General in New Jersey. Patrick Callahan, who is the New Jersey State Police Superintendent.

Lourdes Lucas, who is a judge in Mammoth County Superior Court. And Christopher Caslau, who is a judge in Burgeon County Superior Court. I’ll read you the document because it’s pretty solid. It says, whereas the above name plaintiffs commence this action against the above name defendants to challenge the constitutionality of the state of New Jersey’s justifiable need requirement previously enforced by and through NJSA Section 2C58-4C Charlie, and this other one, as a condition to the issuance of permits for the carrying of handguns in public by ordinary law-abiding citizens of New Jersey, contending that this regulatory scheme violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Pretty straightforward. Whereas on June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruin, striking down New York’s substantially similar proper cause condition to the issuance of handgun carry permits to ordinary law-abiding New Yorkers holding that this law violates the 14th Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Because, one, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

Two, the burden falls on the government to demonstrate that a regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And three, New York could not carry its burden because it failed to identify any American tradition justifying such a proper cause requirement. And whereas, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruin, on June 24, 2022, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive announcing that law enforcement agencies shall no longer enforce that requirement of justifiable need to carry a firearm. Whereas, effective December 22, 2022, New Jersey formally repealed the justifiable need requirement.

Whereas, the parties desiring that this action be settled by appropriate consent decree and without the burden of protracted litigation agreed to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Whereas, subject to the Court’s approval of this consent order, the parties waive a hearing and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues and further agree to entry of this order. And whereas, the Court finding that the fees and costs set forth below are reasonable and all parties having consented and stipulated to the following relief and dismissal of the action with prejudice and for good cause shown.

So, this is what the judge agreed to. One, the Court declares that the requirements formally contained in those laws that applicants for handgun carry permits in New Jersey show justifiable need, violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Two, this order and final judgment do not apply to any other requirement applicants for handgun carry permits in to those laws or other statutes, regulations and application forms adopted pursuant to those authorities. Three, plaintiffs are prevailing parties under 42 USC 1988 and therefore entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

And here’s the structure of their costs. The people in number four will be covered by the state of New Jersey who will pay to the plaintiff’s counsel the amount of $18,500. We go down to number five, defendant Peter S. Cook Jr. in his official capacity of Chief of Police of the Borough of Englishtown Police shall pay to the plaintiff’s counsel the amount of $3,000 so he wasn’t covered by the state. Six, defendant William Wicker, the Chief of Orodale Police Department has to pay the counsel from the plaintiffs the amount of $1,000.

So ordered by Judge Georgette Kastner, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. So it’s a win regardless but it was just still a basically was still a lawsuit that was on the books after Bruin and they had to rectify it and it’s already been struck down because of Bruin so they just did a handshake you know alright yeah we’ll pay the attorney’s fees and the judge said yep you violated the second and fourteenth amendments and the the laws requiring that you know reasonable cause are unconstitutional so good on firearms policy coalition did take a while to get here even though Bruin was decided in 2022 we had to wait until 2024 for the judge to get to this maybe back or backlog I don’t know but it’s a win nonetheless let me know what you guys and gals think I hope you have a phenomenal day I’ll see you on the next one here on guns and gadgets and if you love the second amendment hit that subscribe button down below it’s free doesn’t cost you a nickel but it helps the channel break through this algorithm that has been ratcheted up since June 18th with the new rules I’ll see you on the next one take care
[tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.