Gun-rights advocates are again asking a federal appeals court to strike down New Jersey’s ban on carrying firearms in many public locations, arguing that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating similar restrictions in Hawaii should likewise apply in New Jersey.

In a supplemental brief filed this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Koons v. Platkin contend the Supreme Court’s decisions reinforce their argument that New Jersey’s restrictions on carrying firearms in so-called “sensitive places” violate the Second Amendment.

The filing asks the appeals court to consider the Supreme Court’s latest guidance as it weighs the long-running legal challenge to New Jersey’s firearm carry law, enacted in 2022 in response to the high court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The challenge centers on a law signed by then-Governor Phil Murphy that dramatically expanded the list of locations where licensed gun owners are prohibited from carrying firearms. The measure designated dozens of “sensitive places,” including parks, beaches, entertainment venues, libraries, casinos, bars, museums, zoos, and many other public spaces.

The law also restricts firearms on private property open to the public unless a property owner expressly permits them.

That provision has drawn renewed scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down a Hawaii law requiring businesses to affirmatively allow firearms before licensed gun owners could carry them onto private property open to the public.

In that 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held Hawaii’s law was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the constitutional standard announced in Bruen. Gun-rights advocates argue New Jersey’s private-property provision is materially indistinguishable.

The litigation over New Jersey’s law has stretched nearly four years and has produced a series of conflicting rulings. Federal district courts initially blocked enforcement of several provisions before the Third Circuit allowed much of the law to take effect while the appeal proceeds.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport has defended the law as a constitutional public safety measure designed to protect residents while respecting the Second Amendment. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford, Davenport criticized the ruling as “the Supreme Court’s latest dangerous blow to public safety.”

The Third Circuit, which initially heard arguments in February, has not indicated when it will rule on the appeal. Its eventual decision is expected to have significant implications not only for New Jersey’s firearm regulations but also for similar laws enacted by several other states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.