Motion for Summary Judgement Filed in New Jersey Case

From ANJRPC, the motion can be found here. Reading through it with my layman’s eyes, it looks very well done and thorough. They go to great length to distinguish New Jersey’s law from California’s (which was upheld by a District Court earlier) and I think deal quite effectively with existing precedent in the Circuit on obliterated serial numbers, which applied intermediate scrutiny. Obviously the plaintiffs in this case are calling for strict scrutiny to be applied. It also hits to the heart of the issue here, if I may quote from the motion:

The additional articulated components of the “need” requirement are similarly overbroad and impermissible. The requirement that citizens “corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies” is entirely irrational. Individuals victimized once may never be victimized again, and an individual’s first encounter with a violent criminal may well lead to death or seriously bodily harm – before he or she can even articulate the “need.” The right to self-defense at the core of the Second Amendment does not depend for its existence on a history of previous victimization. The Second Amendment provides that individuals – not the State – retain the ability to decide whether their own “necessity for self-protection” necessitates being armed.

We’ll see how this goes. We should know soon how the judge will rule on this motion. Obviously, the State of New Jersey will be filing a motion for summary judgement from the other point of view.