Несмотря на решение Верховного суда, Нью-Джерси продолжает использовать субъективные критерии для отказа в выдаче лицензий на оружие

Years ago, I got a DM from a reader who lived in New Jersey. He told me how much it sucked not being able to get a permit because "self-defense" wasn't considered sufficient reason to carry a firearm. Yeah, staying alive isn't necessary or anything. Luckily, the Bruen decision smacked down subjective permitting standards. They can't do that anymore. That sort of thing has gone the way of the dodo. The due process clause of the Constitution means that subjective standards were always unjust because, well, subjective standards have a nasty way of being used to create unequal rights. But, according to our own John Petrolino, writing this time at News2A, New Jersey is still a problem. The subjective standard that still persists in New Jersey is applied to the issuance of all firearm-related permits: firearms purchaser identification cards, permits to purchase a handgun, and permits to carry. NJ Rev Stat § 2C:58-3.c.(5) is where the subjective standard is located in New Jersey law. Prior to the Bruen-response law being passed, the issuance of firearm-related permits could be denied by the issuing authority “to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare.” Post-Bruen, New Jersey lawmakers added to the law an additional qualifier: “Because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” The subjective standard in NJ Rev Stat § 2C:58-3.c.(5) now reads in full that “A handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall not be issued … To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Now, let's think about this for a moment. Literally anyone can be determined to be "lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm," if you want to squint at it a certain kind of way. I mean, I know that I've not always been the most responsible or reasonable person out there at certain points in my life. Would that be enough for New Jersey to deny me a permit? No? Then what? Wording like that in state law can be used and twisted so that anyone the state dislikes can be denied a permit. Give fiery speeches from a conservative point of view? Well, you're basically a domestic terrorist and thus unworthy of trust to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Share some memes with racist humor simply because you think they're funny, even if you share them that make fun of every race? Doesn't matter; you're a racist and can't be trusted. You've got a dark sense of humor? You've also got a potential problem getting a permit in the Garden State. Honestly, the issue with a clause like, as I understand matters of law, isn't so much the denial of gun rights as it is that the standards aren't objective and spelled out so that everyone knows what is and isn't acceptable. The Bruen decision made it clear that there were standards that could be set, but they needed to be objective. Here's the weird thing about this subjective standard. It exists in the law and applies to all kinds of permits for guns in New Jersey. So guess what the number one reason for getting a carry permit denied is? In the post-Bruen timeframe, there have been 111,865 applications for permits to carry. Of those applications, 111,374 have been approved, and 488 have been denied. Looking at those denials, 301 of the post-Bruen denials have been due to “public health, safety or welfare.” That means that approximately 62 percent of permit-to-carry denials are under the subjective standard. These statistics are as of Aug. 2026 from the attorney general’s Permit to Carry Dashboard. So they had the "essential character" to own a gun, but now they lack it to carry a firearm? Understand that anyone who applies for a carry permit has probably already purchased a firearm lawfully, thus has gone through this process in some manner before. If that doesn't highlight the subjective nature of this, I don't know what does. Clearly, New Jersey didn't get the message in Bruen, and the denials also seem to have a racial dimension, as both John and I have written about previously. It looks like the Garden State needs a trip to the Supreme Court over this.