PHILADELPHIA — (AmmoLand.com) — The consolidated Koons and Siegel v. Platkin cases were heard en banc by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Formerly, a three-judge panel upheld the majority of New Jersey’s law.
The two cases were originally filed in federal district court on December 22, 2022. Both the Koons and Siegel complaints were in response to the New Jersey legislature and then Governor Phil Murphy’s response to NYSRPA v. Bruen. The law that was enacted severely limited the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally possess and carry their firearms. This was after the state was forced to issue permits to carry to everyday citizens.
The Carry Killer
Among other things, A4769/S3214 made legal carry virtually impossible in the Garden State. The law enumerated some 25 statutized so-called “sensitive locations” where carry would be prohibited. The law also prohibited the carry of loaded firearms in vehicles, created a vampire rule, imposed insurance requirements, and quadrupled the price for permits to carry.
The reactionary measures were quickly realized to be punitive towards any gun owner who wished to exercise their Second Amendment right. Temporary restraining orders were secured shortly after filing, and a preliminary injunction was ordered by May of 2023. The 235-page opinion eviscerated New Jersey’s law.
Appeal to the 3rd Circuit
The State appealed federal district court Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s order to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In their appeal, the State requested a temporary restraining order from the lower court’s opinion, and much of Bumb’s order was stayed.
Oral arguments in the combined cases were heard by a three-judge panel on Oct. 25, 2023. An opinion on the preliminary injunction wasn’t delivered until Sept. 10, 2025 — nearly two years later. On Sept. 17, both the Koons and Siegel plaintiffs petitioned the court for a full en banc review, which was granted on Dec. 11.
The arguments before the en banc panel were heard on Feb. 11, 2026.
The Plaintiffs
The Siegel plaintiffs include individuals Aaron Siegel, Jason Cook, Joseph DeLuca, Nicole Cuozzo, Timothy Varga, Christopher Stamos, and Kim Henry. The filing also included the organizational plaintiff , the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and the National Rifle Association, which is supportive of the case.
The Siegel plaintiffs are represented by Andrew C. Lawrence, Daniel L. Schmutter, Erin E. Murphy, and Paul D. Clement.
The Koons plaintiffs include individuals Ronald Koons, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey M. Muller, and Gil Tal. The filing also included the following organizational plaintiffs: Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, and NJ2AS.
The Koons plaintiffs are represented by David D. Jensen, David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom.
The State
The New Jersey defendants include former Attorney General Matthew Platkin and former State Police Superintendent Patrick J. Callahan. The State defendants is/were represented by former Executive Assistant Attorney General Angela Cai.
There are two intervening parties in the case, the president of the N.J. Senate and speaker of the N.J. Assembly. The legislative intervenors are represented by Edward J. Kologi and Leon J. Sokol.
The En Banc Hearing
The Feb. 11 arguments and examination from the panel lasted a little over an hour. Angela Cai spoke for the majority of the time, about 36 percent of the time. Erin Murphy on behalf of the Siegel plaintiffs spoke for 27 percent of the time. Pete Patterson on behalf of the Koons plaintiffs spoke for 12 percent of the time.
The State’s Argument
Angela Cai tried to argue that a modern approach was needed when examining such laws. Besides grasping at analogues that were irrelevant or could hardly be appreciated as a national tradition, Cai went out of her way to say that the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in the United States was the appropriate timeframe.
The assertion that the postbellum United States is the relevant timeframe was made by Cai, who stated that the 1791 period cited in Lara was not applicable. In Lara, 1791 was twice affirmed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals as the correct timeframe for historical analogues.
Cai attempted to argue that the prohibition on the carry of arms wasn’t widespread until the availability of certain arms were more prevalent. The best that Cai could do was compare libraries and zoos to bakeries — as well as bring up four outlier regulations from four states.
When arguing, Cai would shift her weight from side to side, swaying as she spoke. Cai would also spring on her toes and bob, as if she were catapulting her answers to the judges when examined closely.
Attorney Leon Sokol represents the intervening parties. 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.”
Attorneys Pro-Liberty Arguments
Erin Murphy carried the gross majority of the pro-liberty arguments that day. The Siegel filing is much broader than the Koons filing and does require more attention. Murphy did not waver in standing by her clients’ stances.
When necessary, Murphy would reiterate that hypothetical scenarios about prohibiting the carry of firearms on school grounds were not being challenged by those she represented; however, she did not cede that such prohibitions were constitutional either. The judges seemed to be hyper-focused on the possession of firearms at school-related events that don’t occur on school property, and the matter of playgrounds.
“I want to be clear again, it’s not that we’ve excluded them from our challenge,” Murphy explained. “We don’t understand the provision that we’re challenging to cover them. We understand playgrounds on schools to be covered by the school’s provision that we’re not challenging. So it’s not that that’s an as applied aspect of our playgrounds challenge, it’s that I understand New Jersey to have added a separate provision for playgrounds to ensure that it also reached playgrounds that are not covered by the provision that already deals with school property.”
Attorney Dan Schmutter is on the Siegel legal team. He was upbeat about how things went. “The judges asked questions that were highly focused on the key issues in the case,” Schmutter told AmmoLand News. “So, we are hoping they see things our way.”
Pete Patterson spoke less than half the amount of time as Murphy; however, he did expertly slice up the State’s arguments for the Koons plaintiffs.
“I have an individual right to self-defense if the government is not handling self-defense itself by ensuring that bad actors are not going to be in a place with a firearm,” Patterson quipped. “I have a right to defend myself with a firearm in that place.”
After the arguments, Patterson was queried. “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,” Patterson told AmmoLand News.
Pro-Liberty Observers
There were 11 pro-liberty observers at the circuit court that day. Of those observers, both plaintiffs, Koons and Gaudio, were present to witness the arguments. The majority of the Koons and Siegel supporters were clad in teal Women for Gun Rights shirts.
Theresa Inacker is the N.J. delegate for WGR and is also an NRA board member. Inacker serves as a trustee for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners — one of the organizational plaintiffs in Koons.
“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 told AmmoLand News. “We are confident that the Koons and Seigel plaintiffs will succeed, and we look forward to our carry rights being restored.”
Moms Demand Action
There were plenty of red Moms Demand Action shirts in the gallery observing the proceedings that day. It was hard to catch an exact number; however, it did appear that there were more teal shirts than reds sitting in on the arguments.
A number of women wearing Moms Demand Action shirts were asked if they had a comment about how they thought the arguments went. They all declined to comment, stating that they can’t speak without their spokesperson being present.
The Likely Outcome?
Listening to the line of questions coming from the judges and the makeup of the court, it’s very likely that the majority of what was stayed by the three-judge panel will be reversed. How far will the panel go in enjoining New Jersey’s law? That’s a great question. Those who have been following these cases with optimism would like to see the district court’s injunction reinstated, but they simply won’t know until an opinion is delivered.
Will the full en banc panel take nearly two years to render an opinion and order in this case? That’s not probable. However, it’s realistic to expect the court to only deliver its opinion after the U.S. Supreme Court gives its opinion on the Wolford case sometime prior to the summer recess.
Previously reported, New Jersey, and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a great place to raise litigation against onerous laws that limit the Second Amendment. Cases from these jurisdictions may create circuit splits that the High Court might be looking for to take up a number of controversial cases.
3rd Circuit En Banc Re-Hearing on ‘Sensitive Places’ Bad News for N.J.
CBS Report Details ‘Bruen’ Impact on Restrictive Gun Control Schemes
About John Petrolino
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .
