New Jersey, already one of the nation’s most draconian anti-gun states, is following New York’s example in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision. The Garden State, however, appears to have learned from its neighbor’s temper tantrum and has crafted the new bill’s language accordingly. That doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional.
New Jersey’s concealed carry law has always rested on the applicant having to demonstrate a “justifiable need” to carry a firearm for self-defense. Whether that need was indeed “justifiable” was left to the examining officer’s subjective opinion. Most concealed carry applications were denied under that requirement.
Bruen rendered “justifiable need” unconstitutional and over 300,000 new applications have poured in as a result. So, like any good gun control apparatus, the New Jersey legislature is taking steps to stem the tide.
The new bill says that it “Makes various revisions to requirements for obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun, and permit to carry a handgun; codifies sensitive places in which firearms and weapons are prohibited.”
In reality, the bill makes getting a concealed carry permit much more tedious and expensive, while simultaneously barring concealed carry in as many places as possible. It ditches the “justifiable need” requirement from the old law and replaces it with new stipulations.
New Additions to New Jersey’s Concealed Carry Requirements
- The license fee will increase from $2 to $200. This is essentially back-door gun control. Making Second Amendment rights more expensive is a common gun control tactic, similar to poll taxes of the Jim Crow era.
- The permit holder will be required to carry liability insurance against damage he or she may cause with their firearm. This also makes concealed carry more expensive, and therefore less attainable. It also feeds the growing “public health crisis” narrative of gun control advocates. Proponents liken this to requiring training before getting a driver’s license. The two are not analogous, since driving is a privilege, not a right enumerated in the Constitution.
- San Jose, California has a similar requirement that is currently being challenged in court. So far, the judge has refused to strike it down, likening it to the 18th-century Massachusetts Surety Laws requiring known troublemakers to post a public bond before they could carry a firearm. It remains to be seen whether that will hold up.
- At least four non-family character references will be required with the application. New York’s character reference clause was recently struck down in a Federal District Court, though the restraint was stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pending a hearing by that body.
- Increased training requirements, including online and in-person instruction followed by range qualification. The applicant must pay for the training expenses. Supporters also use the driver’s license argument here, with the same flawed logic. No other Constitutional right requires training for its exercise.
- Applicants must submit themselves to a personal interview with the licensing officer. New York’s interview requirement was struck down and is awaiting a hearing by the Second Circuit.
- Twenty-five new categories of “sensitive places.” Many of these are vague and the entire list is clearly meant to make concealed carry so difficult that most people won’t be able to carry, even with a permit. Once again, New York’s new sensitive places list was struck down and awaiting a hearing by the Second Circuit.
- All private property, including businesses, are designated as “sensitive places.” The property owner must post a notice stating that concealed carry is allowed. The New York law requiring the same thing…you get the picture.
- Increased prohibited person categories. These mainly encompass domestic abusers or those accused of domestic abuse.
Bruen requires that all gun restrictions must demonstrate that they are analogous to the Second Amendment’s text, and history and traditions of the United States at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. New Jersey claims the new bill does that. But gun controllers always say that and most of the challenges under Bruen have proved them wrong.
The bill also claims to be founded on “common sense,” which seems to be the gun control buzzword of the last several years. The only problem is that the gun control crowd believes they have a monopoly on what is common and what is sensical.
Political Noise
Politicians, as always, have lots to say about the new bill. New Jersey State Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Union) said that “My personal belief is that our way of life is being threatened, essentially, by certain things that have gone on in the federal government.” Scutari was clearly referring to Bruen. He continued, “We need to address that [with this] particular piece of legislation.” Scutari seems to be taking Bruen personally, kind of like fellow overreaching politician Kathy Hochul of New York.
A spokesperson for Governor Phil Murphy (D) said that “The Governor’s goal was ensuring that residents and visitors to our state could be confident in their safety in sensitive locations such as daycares, hospitals, stadiums, and public transit.” Murphy has vowed to sign the bill once it reaches his desk, as it will.
State Assemblyman Joe Danielson (D-Somerset) threw out the obligatory “but” quote from the gun control side: “I’m a gun owner, I enjoy my guns often. But I enjoy the right to have those guns and to use them responsibly. This bill provides zero conflict.”
Actually, it conflicts with the responsible gun owner idea all down the line. If concealed carriers go through all that, but are prohibited from carrying almost everywhere, does the state consider them truly responsible? Danielson apparently does not, though he no doubt sees himself as being extra responsible.
Legal Challenges Coming
Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs says the bill is “a big middle finger to the U.S. Supreme Court.” He adds that “These lawmakers have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law – they focus on attacking citizen’s rights while setting violent criminals free. We look forward to overturning these measures in court and forcing the state to pay our legal fees.”
Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex) says he expects legal challenges but believes the law, which he says will be “more stringent” than New York’s, will stand up in court.
The bill is being fast-tracked in the Assembly. It has passed out of committee with a final vote scheduled for October 27.
The Elephant in the Room
While the bill is expected to draw little, if any, Republican support, the legislature’s strong Democrat majority ensures its passage. And Murphy will sign it. But there are two problems.
First, the bill aims squarely at responsible gun owners who go through the process, onerous though it is. It does not address the fact that criminals do not get permits. Nor do they subject themselves to background checks. Despite Danielson’s platitudes, this bill does nothing to deter crime. Its purpose is to make concealed carry as difficult as possible. But such is the nature of gun control laws.
Second, the Bruen Decision is becoming better established and understood every day. Much of the new bill violates Bruen. Even liberal judges are being forced to apply it to established gun control laws. Despite New York’s obfuscation, much of its new laws will likely fall.
New Jersey’s new law, as noted earlier, will be more nuanced in its language than the New York law. New Jersey clearly learned from the Federal District Court case now awaiting its hearing by the Second Circuit. But the principles remain the same. Fancy language cannot hide the fact that the bill is not analogous to the text, history, and traditions of the United States.
An Underhanded Tactic
Politicians very likely know this bill is unconstitutional in many ways, just like they do in New York. But there is no prohibition against passing unconstitutional laws. Our system leaves dealing with that problem to the courts. Access to the judicial system costs lots of money, and government entities, like states, have far more resources than organizations challenging unconstitutional statutes.
Gun-controlling politicians are betting that challengers will eventually bankrupt themselves, because every time something is struck down, they just pass something else that must go the same route. Meanwhile, they get injunctions keeping the laws in place while they appeal.
They are also gambling that the Supreme Court’s makeup may change by the time the challenge reaches that high. Legal challenges often take years and gun controllers play the long game. They have nothing to lose by passing such laws.
It’s a vicious circle that you and I, with our tax money, pay for. That’s right—if you live in New York, New Jersey, California, or wherever, your taxes are paying for the state’s legal fees as they attack your rights. All of us pay for federal infringements. As I said, gun-controlling politicians don’t lose anything by passing such laws. They aren’t paying the lawyers’ fees.
The only way to stop, or even slow, that process is to elect better representatives. Because they aren’t going to suddenly start acting Constitutionally on their own.
You can read the entire New Jersey bill’s text at www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-d295-dcd6-af9f-f2df3d3f0000
