The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard the combined Koons and Seigel cases en banc on Feb. 11, and I was in the courtroom to watch the oral arguments in person. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys may have bested the state, leaving interveners with crossed fingers.
As previously reported, the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the consolidated Koons and Seigel cases via an en banc review. The arguments went just over an hour and while the bellwethers on which way the judges will decide are unknown, if you’re counting points on every glove laid, liberty will ring.
The Koons and Seigel cases were originally filed in federal district court in Dec. 2022. New Jersey enacted a sweeping law that severely limited the right to bear arms within the post-Bruen era.
Attorneys Peter Patterson and Erin Murphy argued for the Koons and Seigel plaintiffs respectively. Angela Cai spoke on behalf of the State of New Jersey. There were 10 pro-liberty observers in the courtroom, including plaintiffs Ronald Koons and Nick Gaudio — and at least one other supporter in the overflow room.
When arguing for the state, Cai leaned on what she referred to as “modern locations” and the democratic decisions of the legislature. Cai made it a point to assert that looking at the appropriate timeframe from which to draw analogues, that the Third Circuit decision in Lara wasn’t relevant. The Third Circuit — twice over — found in Lara that the appropriate timeframe is 1791.
While arguing, Cai would shift her weight from side to side at times. When questioned more poignantly, Cai would respond to the judges by springing on her toes, as if she could catapult her answer to them.
Arguing on behalf of the Seigel plaintiffs, was Erin Murphy. She said that New Jersey took a blunderbuss approach to handling the returned right to bear arms. Garden Staters were only repatriated with their ability to carry in 2022. In contrast, she asserted that her clients weren’t challenging the provisions in the law in an equally broad manner.
Murphy stated that the state was taking a more outlier approach. She said that there’s no way that four laws from four jurisdictions amount to a historical tradition.
There’s no doubt that the Koons attorney, Pete Patterson, dominated the courtroom. Patterson cut to the chase in stating that if there’s a scenario where a so-called “bad guy” is able to bring a firearm into any given location, then any “good guy” should be permitted to carry one for self-defense. When litigating, Patterson came in like a Roman candle, lighting up the room and he shot down all the non-analogous examples delivered by the state.
The court seemed to be hyper focused on discussing the matter of carry at schools and on school property. Plaintiffs were not challenging any of the prohibitions on carrying at schools — although there’s no historical analogue deeming them sensitive locations. However, the topic of carry at locations that are off school property did come up. For example, a school sporting event at a field operated by the municipality should not be subject to the same prohibitions as those on school property proper.
One of the observers who spoke on background after the proceedings noted that Angela Cai inherited a “sh*t sandwich” in having to defend the state. They also observed that Cai was just “making things up.”
When asked for comment about the arguments, attorney Pete Patterson said: “We are pleased we had the opportunity to present our arguments to the en banc Third Circuit this morning, and we look forward to the Court’s decision.”
Attorney Leon Sokol represents N.J. Senate President Nicholas Scutari. Scutari has been an intervener in the case since it was in district court. Sokol was queried about the arguments and he said that he’s “keeping [his] fingers crossed.” Sokol further stated: “We’re optimistic that the en banc panel will uphold the decision of the three-judge panel.”
Several women wearing red Moms Demand Action shirts were asked to comment on the arguments. They all declined to discuss the arguments stating that they’re not able to comment without their spokesperson.
Women for Gun rights was out en force as well, and they had no problem sharing their thoughts. Theresa Inacker, the N.J. delegate for WGR who is also an NRA board member was present. Inacker serves as a trustee for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners — one of the plaintiffs in Koons — and said she was optimistic about the arguments. Inacker, a lawyer, was impressed with both Patterson and Murphy.
“The state does not have a leg to stand on, and that was evident from not only the questioning from the bench, but from the responses from Assistant Attorney General Angela Cai,” Inacker said. “We are confident that the Koons and Seigel plaintiffs will succeed, and we look forward to our carry rights being restored.”
How the full en banc panel will decide is up in the air. It’s not likely that an opinion will come prior to the U.S. Supreme Court publishes their opinion in the Wolford case out of Hawaii, but things do seem to be leaning towards favoring the plaintiffs.
Koons is joined by the following organizational plaintiffs: Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, NJ2AS, and the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs — the state NRA association — is supportive of the Seigel plaintiffs.
Editor’s Note: 2A groups across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
