The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sat en banc on February 11, 2026, to hear consolidated argument in Koons v. Platkin and Siegel v. Platkin — the twin challenges to New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry laws under P.L. 2022, c.131. Based on how that argument went, I believe New Jersey is in for a very large spanking. The most remarkable moment: one of the anti-Second Amendment judges pressed the plaintiffs about a historical analog statute that, as it turns out, was never real.
How We Got Here
After New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), New Jersey responded by designating roughly 25 categories of locations as sensitive places — beaches, zoos, museums, libraries, stadiums, hospitals, and more — plus the “vampire rule” barring carry on private property open to the public without explicit owner consent. Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb of the District of New Jersey enjoined most of this in a 230-page district court opinion. A three-judge Third Circuit panel reversed her in September 2025, with Judge David Porter writing a powerful dissent.
That panel ruling triggered the en banc petition — and the Court granted it. The timing was critical. I have been tracking two Third Circuit confirmations as essential: Judge Jennifer Lee Mascott (confirmed October 9, 2025) and Judge Emil Joseph Bove III (confirmed July 29, 2025). President Trump signed their commissions while traveling overseas so both could be sworn in before the argument. Those seats matter enormously.
The Ghost Statute
Here is the moment that will define this case. Judge Cindy Kyounga Chung — a Biden appointee confirmed February 13, 2023, who sat on the panel that ruled against the Second Amendment last September — pressed plaintiffs’ counsel about a 1792 North Carolina statute she claimed was right on point for New Jersey’s sensitive-places argument.
There is no such statute.
The “law” traces to a legal compendium written by a newly admitted attorney who had been licensed only months earlier. One entry described a law that never existed in any historical record. If the nonexistence alone were not embarrassing enough, the supposed text of this alleged 1792 American statute referred to “the king or the king’s appointees.” King George III. In North Carolina. In 1792. Nine years after the Revolution ended. No American state legislature in 1792 was writing laws by reference to a British monarch. This is not a weak historical analog — it is a historical impossibility.
Judge Chung was using a fabricated statute to prop up New Jersey’s case. That is precisely the kind of invented historical record that Bruen was designed to prevent.
What the Bruen Framework Actually Requires
The burden here sits entirely on New Jersey. Bruen is clear: once the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct — and peaceable carry with a permit plainly falls within “keep and bear Arms” — the government must produce a sufficient number of founding-era historical analogs and derive a coherent principle from them. Plaintiffs can look out the window and still win if New Jersey cannot meet that burden.
New Jersey has come up empty. At the founding, as John Adams acknowledged at the Boston Massacre trial (Rex v. Preston, Oct. 1770), Bostonians were fully entitled to carry arms in the streets for defensive purposes. The only prohibition was misuse — carrying to terrorize or brandish against people. Peaceable carry was the default. The Supreme Court already rejected every attempt to repurpose Statute of Northampton-type “going armed to the terror of the people” laws as sensitive-place authority in Bruen itself. It also held that the entire island of Manhattan cannot be designated a sensitive place. New Jersey’s scheme goes vastly further and has no historical footing.
The Comprehensive Security Principle
I have been making this argument for two years, including in my article in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2024). The only historically grounded principle derivable from Bruen’s three approved sensitive places — courthouses, polling places, legislative chambers — is comprehensive security.
Every one of those locations at the founding was protected by armed personnel: bailiffs, sheriffs’ deputies, sergeants-at-arms. Entry and exit were controlled. Historian Angus Kirk McClellan documented this across all 13 original states in a 100-page study on SSRN (Abstract No. 6105246), cataloging hundreds of founding-era statutes. The government could temporarily disarm the public only when it simultaneously provided armed protection and controlled access.
The test is administrable: limited entry points, screening to exclude weapons, and armed security inside. Federal judges live this reality every day they walk into a courthouse. A beach has none of those features. Neither does a zoo, a library, or a casino. If the government will not provide comprehensive security, it cannot strip the right to carry. Slapping a “no guns” sign on 25 categories of public space and calling them sensitive places is exactly what the historical record forbids.
New Jersey’s Summer of Reckoning
My read is that the full Third Circuit saw through the case New Jersey brought. I expect a ruling by summer 2026, possibly sooner. If the en banc court applies Bruen’s methodology faithfully — as I believe it will — the bulk of P.L. 2022, c.131 should fall. The vampire rule will likely be resolved first by SCOTUS in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, argued January 20, 2026.
New Jersey arrived at this argument with a statute that never existed and a legal theory the Supreme Court has already rejected. That is not a winning hand. When the Third Circuit rules, California, Hawaii, and New York will be watching.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.