UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________

JEFFREY M. MULLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, in his

Official Capacity as Judge of the

Superior Court of Morris County; et

al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT

OF NEW JERSEY

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv6110-WHW-CCC

Original Motion Date: 

March 21, 2011

Electronically Filed

 

_________________________________________________________________

REPLY BRIEF TO OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

_________________________________________________________________

PAULA T. DOW

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

Attorney for Defendants Paula T. Dow,

Colonel Rick Fuentes, Hon. Philip J.

Maenza, Hon. Rudolph A. Filko, Hon.

Edward A. Jerejian, Hon. Thomas V.

Manahan

R.J. Hughes Justice Complex

25 Market Street

P.O. Box 112

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112

Gregory A. Spellmeyer

Deputy Attorney General, Division of Law

gregory.spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us

(609) 984-9504

On the Brief

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 363
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE MATTER INVOLVED and PROCEDURAL HISTORY.. . . . 3

LEGAL ARGUMENT......................... 3

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CROSSDISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED

PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. . . . . 3

A. The Challenged Provisions Do Not Implicate the

Second Amendment Right to Possess a Handgun in

One’s Home for Purposes of Self-Defense And the

Second Amendment Does Not Encompass a Right to

Carry a Handgun Beyond One’s Home.. . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Even If the Challenged Provisions Implicate the

Second Amendment, They Pass Constitutional Review

.......................... 10

1. The Challenged Provisions Are Constitutional

Under Any Heightened Scrutiny. . . . . . . . . 11

2. The First Amendment’s Prior Restraint

Framework Does Not Apply.. . . . . . . . . . . 15

CONCLUSION .......................... 19

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 364
- ii -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . 18

Daniels v. United States,

2 A.3d 250 (D.C.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 806 (2010) .. . . . 7

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).. . . 1,5,7,8

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 

505 U.S. 123 (1992)..................... 17,18

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).. . . . . 1,4

Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004). . . . . . . . . . 12

Siccardi v. State, 59 N.J. 545 (1971).. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

United States v. Barton, 

2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4111 (3d Cir. Mar. 4, 2011). . . . . . 13,16

United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010). . . . 16

United States v. Marzzarella,

614 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,16

United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005).. . . 15

Wilson v. Cook County, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 77

(Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Feb. 9, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 365
- iii -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

STATUTES CITED

D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4504. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4504.01.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4505. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4506 (repealed) (2011). . . . . . . . . . . 6

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4........................ 3

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c,d .................... 3,4,9

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d ...................... 10

REGULATIONS CITED

N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

RULES CITED

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 366
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

New Jersey’s requirement that one qualify for a license in

order to carry a handgun beyond one’s home is a constitutionally

permissible, reasonable regulatory measure that does not implicate

the right to possess a handgun in one’s home for purposes of selfdefense. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595, 628

(2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050

(2010). 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that this regulation does not

implicate the Second Amendment right to possess a handgun within

one’s home for purposes of self-defense. They also do not cite any

case law that interprets Heller as recognizing a federal

constitutional right to carry a handgun beyond one’s home.

Notably, the post-Heller cases arising out of the District of

Columbia, where Heller originated, have not recognized any such

right.

Even if the requirement implicated the Second Amendment, the

challenged statute passes constitutional review. Plaintiffs do not

dispute that New Jersey may regulate handguns and that it has a

compelling interest in ensuring the safety of all of its citizens.

Here, New Jersey regulates but does not prohibit carrying a handgun

in public. Because the justifiable need standard directly relates

to an applicant’s demonstrated need to carry a handgun for selfdefense, it burdens no more of any alleged right to carry than is

necessary. Therefore, New Jersey’s regulation is narrowly tailored

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 367
- 2 -

to serve its compelling interest in ensuring the safety of all of

its citizens and passes constitutional review.

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 368
- 3 -

STATEMENT OF THE CASE and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendants rely upon the Statement of the Case and Procedural

History as set forth in their initial brief. See Docket Entry #25-

1, Brief on Behalf of State Defendants. Defendants submit this

brief in reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ crossmotion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6).

LEGAL ARGUMENT

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANTS’ CROSSMOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A.

2C:58-4 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because N.J.S.A.

2C:58-4c,d do not implicate the Second Amendment. They do not

affect the right to possess a handgun in one’s home for purposes of

self-defense. Neither Heller nor any other case recognizes a

broader federal constitutional right to carry a handgun. Further,

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c,d do not prohibit but merely regulate the

carrying of a handgun in public. 

Alternatively, if there were a constitutional right to carry

a handgun beyond one’s home, the provisions pass constitutional

review even if strict scrutiny were applied. They are narrowly

tailored to serve the State’s compelling interest in ensuring the

safety of all of its citizens.

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 369
The references to the page numbers of the parties’ briefs are 1

to the Docket Entry page numbers marked by the CM/ECF at the top of

briefs rather than to the original page numbers marked by the

parties at the bottom of the briefs.

- 4 -

A. The Challenged Provisions Do Not

Implicate the Second Amendment Right to

Possess a Handgun in One’s Home for

Purposes of Self-Defense And the Second

Amendment Does Not Encompass a Right to

Carry a Handgun Beyond One’s Home.

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c,d are constitutional because they do not

implicate the Second Amendment. See United States v. Marzzarella,

614 F.2d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010) (if challenged law does not burden

conduct falling within scope of Second Amendment, “inquiry is

complete”). Plaintiffs do not dispute that the right to possess a

handgun in one’s home for purposes of self-defense is not affected

here. Also, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller did not

pronounce a broader constitutional right. See Docket Entry #25-1,

Brief on Behalf of State Defendants, pp. 18-23. Plaintiffs do not 1

cite any case law that interprets Heller as recognizing a

constitutional right to carry a handgun beyond one’s home.

“In Heller, [the Court] held that the Second Amendment

protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose

of self-defense.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3050. Despite the

Court’s plain holding in Heller and statement in McDonald,

Plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court necessarily ruled and

held that the Second Amendment protects a much broader “general

right to carry guns.” See Docket Entry #29, Reply Brief in Support

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 370
- 5 -

of Plaintiffs’s Motion for Summary Judgment And in Opposition to

Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss, p.15 (“Plaintiffs’ Brief in

Reply and Opposition”). Plaintiffs’ contention is incorrect,

unsupported, and should be rejected.

Because the holding in Heller does not support Plaintiffs’

position, they cobble together their own view of what the Court

must have meant, even though it did not state so either in Heller

itself or in McDonald. Plaintiffs quickly move past what the Court

plainly said-–its own summary of its holding-–in order to speculate

on what Court did not say but allegedly meant-–that the newly

pronounced constitutional right is far broader than the Court

itself described. The most telling example is that Plaintiffs

fault Defendants’ reliance upon the following paragraph:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on

handgun possession in the home violates the

Second Amendment, as does its prohibition

against rendering any lawful firearm in the

home operable for the purpose of immediate

self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not

disqualified from the exercise of Second

Amendment rights, the District must permit him

to register his handgun and must issue him a

license to carry it in the home.

[Heller, 554 U.S. at 635 (emphasis added).]

See Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition,

p.15.

It is difficult to understand how Plaintiffs fault Defendants

for relying upon the Court’s summary of its own holding except that

it rejects Plaintiffs’ position. Further, this language, although

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 371
- 6 -

precise, clear, and conclusive, is not the only language supporting

Defendants’ position that the right pronounced in Heller is the

right to possess a handgun within one’s home for purposes of selfdefense. Other language is found within Heller itself (without any

need to resort to speculation), McDonald, and subsequent case law.

See Docket Entry #25-1, Brief on Behalf of State Defendants, pp.

18-23. This court need not go any further in this analysis.

Plaintiffs continue their attempt to expand Heller’s holding

by arguing that the right to carry a handgun beyond one’s home was

a right actually resolved by Heller in the context of its review of

the District of Columbia’s regulations. See Docket Entry #29,

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 17-19. This

argument is rebutted by the fact that this very issue remains

subject to litigation. Indeed, Plaintiff SAF knows this because it

is a plaintiff in that litigation.

The District has no law generally authorizing the issuance of

a permit to carry a handgun in public. See D.C. Code §§ 22-4504;

22-4504.01; 22-4505; 22-4506 (repealed) (2011). SAF is a plaintiff

in Palmer v. District of Columbia, wherein it is challenging the

inability to carry a handgun in public in the District. See Palmer

v. District of Columbia, United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, Case No. 09-cv1482, Docket Entry #1-3,

Complaint. Further, courts have not interpreted Heller as striking

down the District’s criminal regulation against carrying a weapon

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 372
- 7 -

without a license. See Daniels v. United States, 2 A.3d 250, 253

n.2 (D.C.) (citing prior case law, declining to interpret Heller as

extending beyond the right to possess in the home and finding that

District’s criminal regulation against carrying weapon without

license not facially unconstitutional), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.

806 (2010). Clearly, the Court in Heller did not pronounce a right

to carry a handgun beyond one’s home, either in the context of its

review of the District of Columbia’s regulations or otherwise. 

Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the Court’s isolated statement of a

right to possess and carry in case of “confrontation” is stretched

too thin in the light of the Court’s further discussions of the

limited scope of the right and its actual holding. See Docket

Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 20-23.

There is no logic or reason by which the use of the words “carry”

or “confrontation” in the context of the decision necessarily must

or should be read to have pronounced a general constitutional right

to carry a handgun in public for purposes of “confrontation.”

First, the statement relied upon by Plaintiffs was part of the

Court’s analysis of whether an individual right, not limited to

carrying arms in a militia, existed rather than the scope or

context of that right. Second, the Court later stated that the

right protected by the Second Amendment was “limited” and did not

extend to carrying “arms for any sort of confrontation . . . .”

Heller, 554 U.S. at 595 (italics in original). Additionally, the

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 373
- 8 -

“confrontation” language well precedes the Court’s separate

discussion that the right is not unlimited and, indeed, is subject

to certain long-standing prohibitions and regulatory measures. Id.

at 626-627 n.26. Most importantly, it also well precedes and is

placed into context by the Court’s holding which is plain in

pronouncing only a right to possess in one’s home for purposes of

self-defense.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, the Court’s discussion of

the significance of the home does not support a conclusion that

Heller extended a right to carry beyond the home. See Docket Entry

#29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 23-26. It

supports the opposite conclusion that Heller applied the right in

the home precisely because the need for self-defense is most acute

in the home. Similarly, the Court’s repeated placement of the

right to possess a handgun in the context of one’s home for selfdefense evidences the Court’s limitation of its pronouncement.

Nowhere does the Court suggest that a sufficient corresponding or

even comparable need for self-defense exists generally beyond the

home such that it was extending a right to carry beyond the home.

The Defendants have argued that there is no indication that

the Court coupled, much less rationalized, the prohibition on

carrying handguns in sensitive places as presupposing the existence

of a general right to carry handguns. Plaintiffs fault this

argument by suggesting that if the Court had intended to limit its

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 374
- 9 -

holding to the home, then it would have been pointless for the

Court to have identified laws prohibiting guns from specified,

sensitive public places as an example of a presumptively lawful

restriction. See Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and

Opposition, p. 28. Plaintiffs’ criticism is misplaced.

Defendants argue that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c,d are constitutional

in light of Heller and McDonald. Even though Heller did not

pronounce a constitutional right to carry a handgun beyond one’s

home, a license to carry a handgun is available pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c),(d) upon a showing of justifiable need. Hence

it does not implicate the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, were a

person to hold such license or were a person otherwise lawfully

entitled to carry a handgun, certainly that person could still be

subject to laws prohibiting guns from being carried into specified,

sensitive public places. Thus, Defendants’ interpretation of

Heller does not render its discussion of presumptively lawful

regulations irrelevant.

Defendants reiterate that New Jersey’s requirement of a permit

to carry a handgun beyond one’s home is a regulation rather than a

prohibition; a fact that Plaintiffs largely forget or ignore

throughout their brief. See Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in

Reply and Opposition, pp. 32-40. Also, Defendants maintain their

position that the cases upon which they rely support the view that

Heller has not been interpreted to pronounce a right beyond the

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 375
- 10 -

right to possess a handgun in one’s home for purposes of selfdefense. See Docket Entry #25-1, Brief on Behalf of State

Defendants, pp. 18-23. 

In sum, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c,d do not implicate the Second

Amendment right to possess a handgun in one’s home for purposes of

self-defense. Plaintiffs do not argue to the contrary.

Plaintiffs’ argument is based upon the incorrect and rebutted view

that Heller pronounced a far broader right to carry a handgun

beyond one’s home. Neither Heller nor any other court interpreting

Heller has pronounced or recognized such an expansive view.

Accordingly, the challenged provisions do not implicate the Second

Amendment and should be upheld as presumptively lawful or as

passing rational basis review.

B. Even If the Challenged Provisions

Implicate the Second Amendment, They Pass

Constitutional Review.

Even if the Second Amendment were implicated, the challenged

provisions pass constitutional review. New Jersey regulates but

does not prohibit carrying a handgun in public. Further, its

justifiable need standard is narrowly tailored to serve its

compelling interest in ensuring the safety of all of its citizens

and passes constitutional review. Finally, there is no basis or

precedence for taking the prior restraint framework out of the

First Amendment jurisprudence, to which it has been specifically

limited, and applying it in this context. It does not operate in

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 376
- 11 -

the Second Amendment context. To attempt to do so ignores the

fundamental differences between the First and Second Amendments as

well as the Court’s specific recognition in Heller that the right

protected by the Second Amendment is limited and is subject to

reasonable regulation, including measures for combating the problem

of handgun violence.

1. The Challenged Provisions Are

Constitutional Under Any Heightened

Scrutiny.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that New Jersey may regulate

handguns and that New Jersey has a compelling interest in ensuring

the safety of all of its citizens. See Docket Entry #29,

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 60-61. Instead,

they mistakenly contend that the regulation of the carrying of a

handgun beyond one’s home is a complete prohibition of a right to

carry. Of course, this also incorrectly presumes that the Court in

Heller pronounced a general right to carry a handgun beyond one’s

home.

The Court in Heller did not explicitly reject application of

the reasonable regulation test to any alleged right to carry

because its holding did not pronounce any right to carry. Further,

the right to carry beyond one’s home is not essential to the right

to possess a handgun within one’s home. Therefore, the application

of the reasonable regulation test is not precluded and is

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 377
Plaintiffs overstate the State Defendants’ reliance upon 2

Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004). Defendants cite it to

support the proposition that the reasonableness test has been

applied in State jurisdictions where the right to keep and bear

arms has been declared to be a fundamental constitutional right.

Plaintiffs also overstate Mosby itself because the court did not

consider whether a law conditioning carry licenses solely on a

finding of “need” would violate the Rhode Island constitution.

Despite finding that the right to bear arms was employed in the

military context and the right to keep arms contemplated “storage

in an appropriate location rather than carrying” in public, it did

not have to consider the issue. Id. at 1042-43. The Mosby

language cited by Plaintiffs emphasizes only that a licensing

decision be subject to judicial review. See Docket Entry #29,

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 46-47.

- 12 -

appropriate. See Docket Entry #25-1, Brief on Behalf of State 2

Defendants, pp. 25-26.

Plaintiffs argue that strict scrutiny rather than intermediate

scrutiny applies to the challenged provisions because they

allegedly burden the core value of the right that the Second

Amendment protects--self-defense. See Docket Entry #29,

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 57-60. This is

incorrect. The Court in Heller held that the right protected by

the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense in the home.

Even if the right could be taken out of the context of the home,

the application of strict scrutiny would not be consistent with

Heller.

In Heller, the Court did not state that the right to possess

a handgun in one’s home was a fundamental right or that strict

scrutiny should be applied to review infringements of it. This is

consistent with its statement that the right to possess a handgun

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 378
- 13 -

in the home is subject to presumptively lawful prohibitions and

regulatory restrictions and is supported by the numerous courts

that have applied intermediate scrutiny to post-Heller Second

Amendment challenges. See United States v. Barton, 2011 U.S. App.

LEXIS 4111, at *7 (3d Cir. Mar. 4, 2011) (Court’s discussion of

presumptively lawful prohibitions is not mere dicta but is

binding). See also Docket Entry #25-1, Brief on Behalf of State

Defendants, pp. 26-27. Accordingly, there is no basis to apply

strict scrutiny to an alleged right to carry a handgun beyond one’s

home. Certainly a lesser standard applies. See Docket Entry #25-

1, Brief on Behalf of State Defendants, pp. 26-27.

Plaintiffs mis-characterize the challenged provisions as a ban

on the alleged general right to carry in order to avoid addressing

the application of the standard of review on the merits. When

discussing which standard of review to apply, Plaintiffs focus on

the right to self-defense but ignore the context of the right being

in the home where the need for self-defense is most acute. But

when discussing the application of the standard of review,

Plaintiffs’ ignore that any alleged right to carry must be grounded

in a need for self-defense. They misstate the issue as “an

individual’s ‘need’ to exercise his or her fundamental

constitutional right” without regard to any individual need to

carry a handgun for self-defense. See Docket Entry #29,

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp. 59. By doing so,

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 379
Plaintiffs also note that qualified security guards under 3

N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)2 need not demonstrate a justifiable need as

evidenced by specific threats. However, Plaintiffs fail to note

that N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)2 requires a certification of justifiable

need to carry a handgun which demonstrates that the guard, in the

course of performing statutorily authorized duties, “is subject to

a substantial threat of serious bodily harm” and “[t]hat carrying

a handgun . . . is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable

serious bodily harm to any person.”

- 14 -

Plaintiffs ignore or seek to avoid that the justifiable need

standard directly relates to an applicant’s demonstrated need to

carry a handgun for self-defense. As such, it burdens no more of

an alleged right to carry than is necessary to serve the State’s

interest in ensuring the safety of all of its citizens and passes

constitutional review.

Plaintiffs note that a retired qualified police officer does

not have to satisfy the justifiable need standard in order to be

licensed to carry a handgun. Plaintiffs appear to argue that this 3

fact somehow undermines or is inconsistent with the State’s

position that the dangers associated with carrying a handgun in

public give rise to a compelling interest justifying regulation.

Plaintiffs argue that the State’s regulation does not serve its

compelling interest because if it did, then the State would

preclude anyone, including retired police officers, from carrying

a handgun. See Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and

Opposition, pp. 61-62. Although Plaintiffs are correct in

suggesting that the State’s compelling interest may justify more

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 380
- 15 -

restrictive regulation than is in place, their argument does not

otherwise undermine the State’s position.

By no logic or reasoning is the State’s compelling interest in

ensuring the safety of its citizens undermined by requiring a

member of the general public, a sportsman, or a collector to

demonstrate a justifiable need and by not requiring a retired,

qualified police officer to demonstrate a justifiable need. While

employed, the police officer’s primary focus, motivation, and

training was on promoting and protecting public safety. Unlike a

member of the general public, a sportsman, or a collector, the

qualified, retired police officer carries this critical public

safety background and perspective with him. Recognition of this

fundamental distinction not only furthers the State’s interest but

in fact narrows the State’s regulation of carrying a handgun.

2. The First Amendment’s Prior Restraint

Framework Does Not Apply.

Plaintiffs continue to fail to identify any decision applying

the prior restraint framework to a Second Amendment challenge. See

Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp.

41-43. Indeed, it remains unclear how it could translate in this

context where there is no prohibition based upon content. See

United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304, 309-10 (2d Cir. 2005).

While some courts have looked to First Amendment analysis, it has

been for guidance to develop the appropriate standard of review in

the Second Amendment context, not to apply the prior restraint

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 381
- 16 -

framework. See United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 682 (4th

Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Marzzarella, supra, is of no

avail because it specifically cautioned that the First and Second

Amendment standards may apply differently, it did not even suggest

the application of a prior restraint framework in the context of

the Second Amendment, and it employed an intermediate scrutiny

standard. 614 F.3d at 96 n.15, 97.

In short, the cases recognize the fundamental differences

between the First and Second Amendments. See United States v.

Barton, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4111, at *8 n.3 (rejecting application

of “overbreadth” doctrine outside of “limited context” of First

Amendment and to Second Amendment challenge; and presuming felon

dispossession statute constitutional); Wilson v. Cook County, 2011

Ill. App. LEXIS 77, at *33 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Feb. 9, 2011)

(rejecting application of “overbreadth” doctrine outside of First

Amendment and to Second Amendment challenge; and applying

intermediate scrutiny). The First Amendment protection of speech

is difficult to regulate without materially infringing upon its

core rights, and those core rights are not typically expressed

through conduct that presents an inherent risk of danger to the

general public. In contrast, the Second Amendment can be regulated

without materially infringing upon the core right to self-defense

in one’s home and a handgun is inherently dangerous such that its

reasonable regulation specifically furthers the public safety.

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 382
- 17 -

In an attempt to bridge this difference, Plaintiffs liken the

inherent danger of a handgun to the “power” of the spoken word.

See Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition,

pp. 41-50. The futility of the attempt is apparent on its face but

also demonstrated by Heller’s statements that the right protected

by the Second Amendment is limited and subject to long-standing

prohibitions and presumptively lawful regulatory measures. Heller,

554 U.S. at 626-627 n.26. “[M]easures regulating handguns” remain

a tool for combating “the problem of handgun violence in this

country . . . .” Id. at 636. This jurisprudence rejects

Plaintiffs’ position because it recognizes the applicability of

restraints on the Second Amendment. For all the “power” of the

spoken word, there is no corresponding First Amendment violence and

the First Amendment prior restraint jurisprudence is not

comparable.

Plaintiffs’ also argue that the challenged statute is a prior

restraint because it allegedly conditions protected Second

Amendment conduct upon a discretionary grant of permission. See

Docket Entry #29, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Reply and Opposition, pp.

43-47. The court should reject this argument. Plaintiffs’

reliance upon Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123

(1992) is wholly inapposite. It addressed a licensing regulation

under the First Amendment prior restraint framework because its

arbitrary application risked suppressing a particular point of

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 383
- 18 -

view. Id. at 131-32. Furthermore, once again, Plaintiffs’

argument is based upon the incorrect and rebutted premise that the

right protected by the Second Amendment extends to carrying a

handgun beyond one’s home. It also ignores that the Second

Amendment is subject to limitation and regulation as well as that

the challenged statute is a mere regulation, not a prohibition.

Additionally, the approval of a permit to carry is not based upon

unbridled, carte blanche, or arbitrary discretion but a

determination of whether the standard for such--rooted, as is

Heller, in the need for self-defense--has been satisfied. See Bach

v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that decision

regarding whether proper cause existed to issue license to carry

will not be disturbed unless arbitrary and capricious). Finally,

the reasonable application of New Jersey’s justifiable need

standard can be effectively enforced on judicial review to guard

against the potential of an arbitrary decision. Siccardi v. State,

59 N.J. 545, 555-56, 557 (1971). See also Docket Entry #25-1,

Brief on Behalf of State Defendants, pp. 28-30.

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 384
- 19 -

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the State

Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for its

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

PAULA T. DOW

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE DEFENDANTS

BY: /s/ Gregory A. Spellmeyer 

Gregory A. Spellmeyer

Deputy Attorney General

Dated: March 16, 2011

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 35 Filed 03/16/11 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 385