New Jersey lawmakers are joining New York in testing the limits of Second Amendment precedent in proposing sweeping gun legislation that critics say runs afoul of the Supreme Court, while Republicans in Congress are also weighing in on the issue.

The legislation would make changes to how guns could be bought and sold in the Garden State, require permit holders to buy liability insurance, and create a set of areas where guns would be prohibited.

The main sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Joe Denielsen, a Democrat, said at a press conference Thursday that the proposal “provides zero conflict” with the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or the Constitution.

“I’m a gun owner, I enjoy my guns often,” Mr. Danielsen said. “But I enjoy the right to have those guns and to use them responsibly.”

Gun rights advocates disagree. Among them is the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Scott Bach, who tells the Sun: “These attacks by New Jersey lawmakers are a big middle finger to the U.S Supreme Court.”

“These lawmakers have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law — they focus on attacking citizens’ rights while setting violent criminals free,” he said. “We look forward to overturning these measures in court and forcing the state to pay our legal fees.”

The legislation has also caught the attention of national groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America, the latter of which is currently involved in a court case against a similar statute in New York. 

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, Amy Hunter, argues that the proposed regulations “will not decrease crime” because “criminals will never abide by these laws.”

“Beyond the simple logic of how useless these laws would be, the New Jersey legislature is proposing unconstitutional measures that will not stand up in court,” she said. “This has nothing to do with public safety.”

The president of the Gun Owners of America, Erich Pratt, took issue with the provision requiring permit holders to purchase liability insurance.

“GOA vehemently opposes the New Jersey law,” he tells the Sun. “Forcing people to pay monthly premiums to exercise rights is just another example of the anti-gun left’s attempts to relegate our rights to mere privileges for the wealthy and elite.”

The insurance in question would be to cover “bodily injury, death, and property damage sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a firearm carried in public,” according to the bill.

Although it is not known how much monthly premiums would cost, permit holders would be required to carry proof of insurance as well as their gun permit and provide it to law enforcement upon request.

It would also ban permit holders from using alcohol, cannabis, or a controlled substance while carrying. Permit holders would also face punishments for “engaging in an unjustified display of a handgun” and failing to display the permit and proof of insurance.

The New Jersey bill was unveiled only weeks after some similar provisions were put on hold by Judge Glen Suddaby of the federal court at Syracuse.

Although Judge Suddaby’s decision was itself put on hold by a rider of the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, Eunice Lee, the ultimate fate of New York’s regulations is unsettled pending action by a panel of three riders of the Second Circuit.

The president of the New York County Lawyers Association, Vincent Chang, tells the Sun that, though the Second Circuit does not have jurisdiction over New Jersey, “some aspects of the New Jersey law would not likely withstand constitutional scrutiny” if Judge Suddaby’s decision is sustained.

“The New Jersey law includes provisions analogous to ones that Judge Suddaby struck down in NY, such as a prohibition on carry in stadiums, day care centers, public transportation, and (presumptively) in any private establishment,” Mr. Chang wrote in correspondence with the Sun.

He also expressed skepticism that the liability insurance requirement in New Jersey would stand, while noting that “a record will be made on this issue” and that his initial suspicion could be proven wrong.

Among the provisions that have garnered the most scrutiny in New York are those that ban permit holders from carrying a weapon in certain public locations.

Although the Supreme Court gave its blessing to some restrictions on where a gun owner could carry  a firearm, like a courthouse or government building, it’s not yet decided how broad these restrictions will be going forward.

The measures in New York have become high profile not only because they could affect laws in other states but because they have attracted the attention of the third-ranking Republican in the House, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York.

Ms. Stefanik, alongside Representative Claudia Tenney, is introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives calling on judges in New York to strike down the state’s new Concealed Carry Improvement Act. 

The measure was rushed into law after Bruen in what critics saw as an effort to recreate some of the restrictions the Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.

“I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court,” Ms. Stefanik said.