Alright, let's take a look at this beast of a ruling from Judge Bumb. Given its length, I'll probably jump around to the parts that interest me most. BTW, congrats to @SAF and @Firearms Policy Coalition on the win.

The Bruen Tantrum laws have legislative history packed to the brim with evidence that states sought to undermine the right to carry.

A common trend now is judges just doing their own historical research, despite Bruen saying its totally the state's burden. This most often happens with judges that are on our side. I think they want to steelman their rulings for appeal.

The judges who aren't on our side tend to not do historical research of their own. They just rubber stamp whatever the state claims is an analogue, and uphold the law.

I harp on this point a ton. Whatever your opinion on guns, people who voluntarily go through the carry permit application process are exceptionally unlikely to ever be a criminal threat. By applying to do this legally, they demonstrate a huge predisposition to following the law.

Like it or not, background checks are probably here to stay. Even most favorable judges are fine with them. I don't like how she even is OK with the NJ law about "temperment", as that goes beyond the objective standards Bruen approved of.

I'm not agreeing with all of Judge Bumb's decisions in here, but this really is an exceptional ruling when it comes to examining history. She goes into crazy depth, even looking at things like state ratification conventions in the 18th century. No one can claim she wasn't thorough.

It's funny how NJ state officials and gun control groups are bashing Judge Bumb, when she did their work for them to save some pieces of their law. If she had just gone off of what they submitted, like Bruen says she is supposed to, then more of the law would have been enjoined.

Hard disagree. Most of the laws she cites are discriminatory laws against entire groups, not specific individuals who gave some indication they were dangerous. The "how" and "why" are different. These aren't good analogues.

I also really dislike her high fees discussion. While it's true that in the first amendment context governments can recover their actual costs, there has to be some protection against bad faith cost overruns (like claiming you need to provide 100 cops for a small parade, making the permit prohibitively expensive). I'm sure cities like La Verne can pretend their costs are as high as they claim and charge $1000 for permits. The relevant metric is what other places charge for issuing permits. If a fee is way out of whack of most others, it is too expensive. The financial burden on constitutional rights should not vary by location. Besides, in Bruen the Court said exorbitant fees are grounds for a constitutional challenge. They obviously meant exorbitant to the applicant, not the government. And repeatedly kiting to a pre-Bruen case is not persuasive. New York didn't consider carry a right at the time (and in practice, still doesn't).

Great discussion on why the surety laws are not analogues for the insurance requirement. A court in California got this one wrong last year.

Really irritating that courts are calling this the "default rule" and not the "vampire rule" @Rob Romano

Judge Bumb don't read everything ever written challenge level: impossible.

Again, I may disagree with her on some of her reasoning, but this is a judge who does her homework lol.

I have some quibbles with this. For example, are you not allowed to carry if you are delivering pizzas and go onto someone's property? Knocking on a front door is an activity that is usually open to the public unless there is some sign saying otherwise, even if entering without permission is obviously not OK. But the general principle is fine. The primary concern is places that are open to the public.

Disregard my last post, she discusses this point.

This is super common in the sensitive places arguments government defendants make. They say the mere presence of kids makes a place like a school. It's total nonsense of course, because with schools, the government is acting in loco parentis.

The flat rejection of 20th century laws is nice to see given some judges have started to bullshit on this point.

Another greatest hits argument for the government is just saying that crowded places are sensitive. Judge Bumb rejects this, as she should.

Love it. And this is the question all the gun control orgs have no answer to either. Also, the academics who claim shall-issue increases crime. They never show that people with carry permits are the ones committing the crimes, because they can't.

I skipped a ton (requiring 4 references is fine, really?) but those are my highlights. Judge Bumb stretched the analogues too much, in my opinion, when it came to permit issuance and fees. She seems to be fine with allowing extensive vetting for the right to carry. But once you get that permit, in her reading of the relevant history, you shouldn't be too restricted on where you can carry.