Piszczatoski v. Filko
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4293
| D.N.J. | 2012Background
- New Jersey Handgun Permit Law requires applicants to show justifiable need to carry a handgun outside the home.
- Applications are reviewed first by a police official and then by a Superior Court judge, with potential appellate review.
- Plaintiffs are five individuals denied permits and two organizations challenging the law as facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- Defendants argue the law does not burden protected Second Amendment conduct and is consistent with longstanding regulatory practice.
- The court declines summary judgment for plaintiffs and grants dismissal to defendants, concluding the law is not facially unconstitutional and survives intermediate scrutiny if applicable.
- The decision acknowledges uncertainty about the scope of Second Amendment outside the home but upholds the statute as presumptively lawful when burdened conduct falls outside the core home-based right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Handgun Permit Law burdens Second Amendment rights. | Piszczatoski argues the law burdens self-defense carry. | New Jersey asserts no burden on core rights and allows regulation. | Not a burden on core Second Amendment rights. |
| Whether the law is facially unconstitutional as a restriction on protected conduct. | Plaintiffs claim unconditional denial framework acts as a prohibition. | Law is consistent with longstanding regulation and tailored. | Not facially unconstitutional. |
| Whether the law operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint. | Law grants unchecked discretion to officials. | Discretion is bounded by statutory and regulatory standards. | Not unconstitutional as a prior restraint. |
| What level of scrutiny applies if outside-home carry is protected at all. | If outside-home carry is protected, strict scrutiny applies. | If burden arises outside the home, intermediate scrutiny applies. | Intermediate scrutiny governs; law withstands it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess and use handguns in the home; limits scope outside home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (applies Second Amendment to states via incorporation; limited guidance on scope outside home)
- Marzzarella v. Mastriano, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-pronged approach; core home-right vs. outside-home regulation; intermediate scrutiny for outside-home burden)
- United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizes longstanding regulations may fall outside Second Amendment protection)
- United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2012) (discusses scope of Second Amendment outside core protections)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizes limited outside-home right when related to core gun ownership and training)