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 â€œneedâ€ requirement areÂ similarly overbroad and impermissible. The requirement that citizens â€œcorroborateÂ the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports ofÂ such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agenciesâ€ is entirely irrational.Â Individuals victimized once may never be victimized again, and an individualâ€™sÂ first encounter with a violent criminal may well lead to death or seriously bodilyÂ harm â€“ before he or she can even articulate the â€œneed.â€ The right to self-defense atÂ the core of the Second Amendment does not depend for its existence on a historyÂ of previous victimization. The Second Amendment provides that individuals â€“ notÂ the State â€“ retain the ability to decide whether their own â€œnecessity for self-protectionâ€ 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.