New Jersey is one of the holdout Bruen-affected states. Attorney General Matthew Platkin recently sent out a proposed rule that deals with racial bias in the state, something that’s been uncovered to be occurring in N.J.’s firearm permitting scheme. Naturally, the Second Amendment is not the topic of the lead law enforcement officer’s recommendations.

The legislature and executive branches could have addressed a number of issues within the statutes of N.J.'s law regulating firearms, but instead they opted to be forced via NYSRPA v. Bruen. Even though the Garden State has allegedly defaulted to “shall-issue,” they still are not following the directives of the High Court concerning objective qualification standards. They also doubled down on infringements by passing and enacting more stringent regulations on firearms.

Through data obtained from the Attorney General’s Office, some Open Public Record Act requests, and the N.J. Permit to Carry Dashboard, it was found that Black applicants for permits to carry are denied at a rate of more than double their white counterparts.

Those who want to talk about the crime rate in the Black community over the white community could go ahead and do so, productive or not productive as that may be. If sincere conversations were happening, the outcome is not likely to make progressive administrations look any better than they do now.

But, when looking at the data, it was found that Blacks are also denied more than double whites when a subjective standard is being used to mark their eligibility.

Subjective standard = opinion

In short, an issuing authority can use 2C:58-3(5) to say a person is not fit to carry a firearm because the issuance of of such a permit “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.” 

An issuing authority that's predisposed to some sort of racial bias can use this law as their excuse to subvert a civil liberty. And, it appears they are.

Platkin’s recent release is full of great quotes about the topic of racial disparity.

“I thank Attorney General Platkin and his office for continuing to prioritize some of our most vulnerable communities.” – Governor Phil Murphy

“We’re committed to eradicating underlying biases that serve as a barrier…” – Attorney General Matthew Platkin

“Systemic racism and implicit bias are not myths, and have contributed to a long history of racial and ethnic disparities…” – Health Commissioner Kaitlan Baston, MD

What’s Platkin’s announcement actually about? Because we know it’s not about law-abiding Black gun owners or those seeking permits.

Advancing ongoing efforts to address pronounced racial disparities in maternal and infant health outcomes in New Jersey, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division of Consumer Affairs today announced proposed rules aimed at eliminating biases that negatively impact the quality of care delivered by health care providers to women of color during pregnancy, labor, delivery, postpartum, and neonatal periods.

The proposed rules, published in the New Jersey Register today, would require physicians, nurses, and midwives who provide perinatal treatment and care to pregnant persons in New Jersey to undergo implicit and explicit bias training to root out prejudices and stereotypes that may affect the quality of care that they provide. 

When confronted with the data that Black applicants for permits to carry were being denied at the rate that they were, Platkin’s office replied with, “No comment.”

Further OPRAs were filed to see if Plakin or his office had issued any directives or guidance to issuing authorities on the topic of racial bias being used in the permitting system. The results showed that about a month post-notification about the bias that's been proliferating, Platkin’s office sent out zero directives or guidance on how to handle the illegal 2C:58-3(5) denials.

When confronted about whether or not the office intended on instituting any measures to ensure that the rights’ of Black applicants were being respected, Platkin’s office replied with, “No comment.”

Where’s the bias training for issuing authorities? We should all be asking both Governor Phil Murphy – who has refused to respond to requests for comment on the topic repeatedly – and Attorney General Matthew Platkin, why they’re allowing these practices to continue.

Even if Platkin and Murphy find the Second Amendment to be categorized as “a second-class right,” as Justice Thomas quoted the McDonald case in NYSRPA v. Bruen, asserting it shouldn’t be “subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,” they shouldn’t be ignoring this data.

In this instance, by Murphy and Platkin treating the Second Amendment as a Constitutional orphan, or a blight they are forced to deal with, they’re making it clear that they’re complicit in having their Black constituents remain second-class under the law.

Attorney General Matthew Platkin was asked for a comment on this subjective favoritism that’s apparent between these two race-related issues.

I'm writing concerning the recent announcement from Attorney General Matthew Platkin's office concerning "eliminating biases [...] to women of color" in the healthcare arena. I'm a freelance journalist who covers civil liberty related issues.

Platkin noted in his release that, “We’re committed to eradicating underlying biases that serve as a barrier to quality healthcare for too many women of color in our state.” And it was stated by Health Commissioner Kaitlan Baston, MD., that, "Systemic racism and implicit bias are not myths, and have contributed to a long history of racial and ethnic disparities..."

I've reached out to this office multiple times concerning racial bias being allowed to proliferate in New Jersey's permit to carry application process.

To recap, I've discovered that Black applicants are denied at a rate of more than double whites. I further exposed that not only are Blacks denied at a rate of more than double of whites, they're also denied under an illegal subjective standard – 2C:58-3c(5) . This means that Blacks are denied more than whites based on opinion, and not a narrow and objective standard. For my coverage on these data, you can visit: Black Applicants for N.J. Permits to Carry Denied More Than Double Whites

Can I get a comment or commitment from the office about this? The office does both acknowledge[] and has identified that racial bias negatively impacts Black New Jerseyans – by their own admission – would you please send an explanation why the matter of Black denials for permits to carry has yet to be addressed?

I'm in no rush on a deadline, but an expeditious and well thought out comment would be appreciated before weeks' end. Should the office need more time, please let me know.

The day after the query, this response was returned:

John,

When you reach out to our office with an inquiry, please limit the email to the OAG Press account, without copying the attorney general.

The office has no comment, as this is the subject of litigation.

“No comment,” seems to be Platkin’s go-to on anything uncomfortable.

Considering this is the topic of pending litigation, one would think Platkin et.al. would circle the wagons to try and engage in damage control. By finding 2C:58-3c(5) to be unenforceable, Platkin would be showing a good faith effort to tend to the enforcement of N.J.’s laws through a Constitutional lens. That would probably look good in a courtroom.

There are several pieces of pending litigation dealing with 2C:58-3c(5), one being Seigel et.al v. Platkin et.al. Seigel is a challenge to N.J.’s so-called “carry-killer” law that was enacted post-Bruen.

The complaint observes that 2C:58-3c(5) is “utterly standardless, reflecting the utterly subjective nature of the permitting process, in violation of Bruen’s requirement that any permitting process be based solely on objective criteria and inviting unbridled discretion in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Under count one of the complaint, the Seigel filing accurately states, “Defendants cannot show that the following subjective permit disqualifiers in N.J.S. 2C:58-3[5] are consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation.” Further, count three asserts correctly that “the following subjective permit disqualifiers in N.J.S. 2C:58-3[5] are standardless and vague and therefore they invite arbitrary application.”

You'd think if Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matthew Platkin actually cared about Black people they’d act on this issue. Keeping the racist statute alive is both futile and revealing of what I suspect are Murphy’s and Platkin’s true feelings on minorities in the Garden State, at least when it comes to their right to keep and bear arms.

This is just another example of hypocrisy in New Jersey at work. While it’s not likely that Murphy or Platkin will backtrack on this topic – they lack the moral fiber to do anything that bold– who knows what’ll happen. We can be hopeful that both Murphy and Platkin have a moment of clarity and do the right thing. At a minimum, the pair could actually comment with something more substantial than, “The office has no comment.”

To read the correspondence string with Platkin’s office on this topic, click HERE or see it in the embed below.