One of the biggest things on the surface that the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision did was throw out discretionary permitting standards. The core conflict of the case dealt with New York’s law requiring that applicants for carry licenses show “proper cause” prior to being issued their documentation. Any standard that’s subjective would be deemed unconstitutional under the standards set forth in Bruen. Even though, it’s a fact that many in power are ignoring. New Jersey’s permit denials are heavily weighted on the use of subjective standards. Jurisdictions in the Garden State have been put on notice that this is illegal.

N.J. 2C:58-3c(5) in New Jersey’s law is what's driving this subjective bus. The law states that an issuing authority could withhold the issuance of a permit to carry “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.”

In March, data provided by Attorney General Matthew Platkin, showed that the majority of permit to carry denials were based on an illegal subjective standard. At the time “about 250 applicants were denied,” one report stated. “Over half of them due to ‘public health, safety and welfare’ concerns.”

At the time, Dr. John Lott from the Crime Research Prevention Center made the same observation. “Since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, New Jersey has approved 34,589 concealed handgun permits [and] had denied 246 applications — an acceptance rate of 99.3%,” Lott pointed out. “However, almost half of those denials are problematic. 112 of the denials were for ‘public health, safety, and welfare.’ reasons.” 

Lott reiterated that the standard is verboten and said “the Bruen decision made it clear that only ‘objective’ standards can be used in denying permits.”

From June of 2022 to April of 2024, there were about 62 jurisdictions – excluding State Police barracks – who used the subjective N.J. 2C:58-3c(5) criteria to deny applicants permits to carry.

With only a few notable exceptions due to clerical errors, the police chiefs and mayors of all those jurisdictions were queried and notified. The subject of the letters sent in April via U.S. Post were about the use of the “public health, safety and welfare” in the denials of permits to carry.

“The reason I’m writing to you is because your jurisdiction has denied the issuance of X permits to carry from July 2022 to February 2024 under N.J. 2C:58-3c(5),” the letter to the chiefs stated. “According to several Supreme Court decisions, 'subjective' standards for issuing such permits or licenses has been deemed unconstitutional. Only objective standards can be used.”

The letter continued:

In D.C. v. Heller, the majority opinion notes:

"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon."

Footnote #9 from NYSRPA v. Bruen states that jurisdictions that:

"likewise appear to contain only 'narrow, objective, and definite standards' guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the 'appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,' Cantwell v. Connecticut."

In Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Bruen, which is consistent with footnote #9 from the majority opinion, we have the following:

"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States."

Your jurisdiction is one of 63 in the state of New Jersey that has utilized subjective criteria to deny an applicant their right to bear arms during the period highlighted.

It was further stated that, “I feel my readers would like to know or would be curious about, is if you have any commentary about this practice going forward and if you’ll commit to no longer use a verboten standard when evaluating permit to carry and other firearm permitting related applications?”

Out of respect to all the jurisdictions involved, full disclosure was given, as well as full opportunity to the police chiefs to give their comment. “The piece I’m working on includes an aggregate of all the data from jurisdictions that have used N.J. 2C:58-3c(5) as a denial criteria,” was stated “and I think it’s only fair to allow you to weigh in on your department’s use of this standard.”

Full copies of the two-page police chief letters were included in correspondence to the mayors of the jurisdictions.

In the letter to the mayors, they were asked to share the correspondence with the full council of their jurisdiction. “I’m writing because I have reached out to the police chief in your jurisdiction and I have copied you and the council on my letter – please share this correspondence with your colleagues.”

“I understand that it’s easy to have oversights, such as this one, with laws and case law changing all the time,” the letter said. “Considering the information I’ve provided via my letter concerning the use of N.J. 2C:58-3c(5), I wanted to give you and the council an opportunity to comment prior to me publishing copy about these denials.”

The letter further explained the intent:

I would like to share with my readers your thoughts on the subject. I also would like to get a commitment from your office and the council, on the record, whether or not you’ll be encouraging/ordering the issuing authority in your jurisdiction to no longer use subjective standards in their permitting policy. And do share with me if there’s any consideration to pass a resolution(s) where the town acknowledges that N.J. 2C:58-3c(5) is unconstitutional due to subjectivity, per several Supreme Court decisions.

Of the 124 letters sent to chiefs of police and mayors, there were in the neighborhood of single-digit responses. Some townships recorded the letter and sent back a receipt indicating such. Some mayors did reach out, and they expressed their commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. One mayor took the time to talk on the phone about the issue. One jurisdiction did send a lengthy response in which stated they and their jurisdiction supports the Second Amendment.

There’s frankly no reason to call further attention to or call-out those jurisdictions. But going forward is going to be another story.

Subsequent to sending out the letters, data was looked at on the denials from May of 2024. Of the eight 2C:58-3c(5) denials, four of them were sent letters in April. All eight jurisdictions were emailed concerning these denials. In each instance, mayors and full councils were copied in all the emails when available.

The jurisdictions that used subjective standards to deny permit-to-carry applications in the month of May were:

• EGG HARBOR TWP
• CARLSTADT BORO
• BLOOMFIELD TWP
• KEARNY TOWN
• NORTH BERGEN TWP
• SECAUCUS TOWN
• ABERDEEN TWP
• LINDEN CITY

One jurisdiction of those eight replied to queries. There was an extensive back and forth with the unnamed officer on the other side. Out of respect for the jurisdiction, it’s not going to be made public which one it was that replied.

In defense of using the subjective standard, old versions of the law were provided. A list of what criteria fulfill the 2C:58-3c(5) denials was requested. This is what was said, “In very general terms, if an applicant knowingly submits a false application, or knowingly and intentionally omits evidence of disqualifying information, that deceptive behavior may be considered lacking in character.”

Since there seemed to be a disconnect, this final statement and request was sent seeking information:

The criteria you listed off fall under another disqualifier. False application – which includes the deceptive behavior etc. –  would be a disqualifier under 2C:58-3c(3).

As a matter of fact, that would make the person a liar. As a matter of opinion, that does not make them a "public health, safety or welfare" hazard.

What "non-general" terms are there to disqualify an applicant under 2C:58-3c(5)? I can handle the jargon. Do you have a list of these criteria?

The reply tells everyone reading this and everyone in all three branches of government almost everything they need to know about subjective standards:

You appear to be seeking specific, exacting criteria, which is not all-inclusive and cannot be created to cover every possibility.  Every applicant is different, and this section of denial is not used exclusively, but rather, specific disqualifying information is both covered under its specific subsection, but can also apply to character.

In the months following,  2C:58-3c(5) denials using the “public health, safety and welfare” standard were still used to deny people their permits to carry.

The N.J. NICS Research Center has also been doing extensive work following these denials. Recently they recorded 13 denials of permits to carry for the month of July. Of those 13, seven were for “public health, safety and welfare.”

A full revaluation of post May 2024 denials will be done and further follow-ups will be conducted with issuing authorities. More reporting will be conducted on this topic and there’s at least one jurisdiction that’s going to be covered extensively on their use of the subjective standard and the denial criteria they find appropriate.

The 2C:58-3c(5) denials have been extensively covered. The most brazen piece of information uncovered through these investigations is these denials seem to be in part, racially motivated. Reported back in May, it was uncovered that “Black Applicants for N.J. Permits to Carry Denied More Than Double Whites.”

This continues to be a developing story. What needs to be acknowledged though is that many of these police chiefs, mayors, and councils have been asked for comment on their use of illegal subjective standards. With limited exceptions, none of them wished to weigh in on the topic or address it, but they’re on notice and can’t say, “I did not know.”

Below is a list of relevant work concerning the topic of permit to carry denials in New Jersey and the permitting scheme post-Bruen. Also below is a list of all the jurisdictions whose mayors, councils, and police chiefs were sent letters in April about their use of the illegal subjective standard.

Articles:

• New Jersey AG directs police departments hand over "anonymized" data on carry applications
• N.J. Attorney General Releases Data on Permits to Carry; Proves Us Right!
• N.J. Attorney General Platkin Has a Sticker Party. States ‘Guns Bad,’ on Taxpayers’ Dime.
• Data Shows Majority of N.J. Carry Permit Denials Based on Verboten Subjective Standard
• N.J. Top Cop: No ‘Drastic Bump in Public Shootings’ With Increase in Carry Permits
• Data on N.J. Permit to Carry Applications Shows Excessive Waits
• Black Applicants for N.J. Permits to Carry Denied More Than Double Whites
• Open Letter to New Jersey Legislative Body Regarding Racist Gun Permitting Law
• N.J. Attorney General Platkin Responds to Racial Bias Allegations on Permits to Carry
• N.J. Permit to Carry Dashboard Reveals Startling Discoveries
• Is N.J. AG Platkin Willfully Allowing Civil Rights Violations and Racial Bias in Carry Permit Scheme?
• N.J. ACLU Seems Uninterested in State's Racist Firearm Permitting Practices
• NJ NICS Research Center Knocks it out of the Park on Storage Map
• The Four Boxes and the Backlash to New Jersey AG’s Independence Day Post
• Permitting Abuses in N.J. Almost Part of History and Tradition (Not Really)
• New Jersey Gun Owners Raise More Than 25K to Challenge Permitting Laws
• N.J. Attorney General Addresses Racial Bias, but not on Gun Permitting
• N.J. Governor Phil Murphy Ignores Bias Against Blacks and Systemic Racism Under His Leadership

Jurisdictions:

• SECAUCUS TOWN
• EAST ORANGE CITY
• WINSLOW TWP
• HAWTHORNE BORO
• WAYNE TWP
• DUMONT BORO
• EDGEWATER PARK TWP
• EWING TWP
• HAMILTON TWP
• LIVINGSTON TWP
• ENGLEWOOD CITY
• HANOVER TWP
• JACKSON TWP
• NORTHVALE BORO
• RAHWAY CITY
• ROCHELLE PARK TWP
• SOUTH BRUNSWICK TWP
• WOODBURY HEIGHTS BORO
• ALLENDALE BORO
• BOUND BROOK BORO
• BRANCHBURG TWP
• BRIDGETON CITY
• BRIDGEWATER TWP
• BYRAM TWP
• CARLSTADT BORO
• CEDAR GROVE TWP
• CHESILHURST BORO
• CLARK TWP
• CLOSTER BORO
• DELANCO TWP
• DEMAREST BORO
• EGG HARBOR TWP
• ELMER BORO
• ELMWOOD PARK BORO
• EVESHAM TWP
• FAIRFIELD TWP
• FRANKLIN LAKES BORO
• FRANKLIN TWP
• GARFIELD CITY
• HACKENSACK CITY
• HAWORTH BORO
• HOPATCONG BORO
• KEARNY TOWN
• LACEY TWP
• LAKEWOOD TWP
• LODI BORO
• MADISON BORO
• MANSFIELD TWP
• MARLBORO TWP
• MIDLAND PARK BORO
• NUTLEY TWP
• PATERSON CITY
• PENNSVILLE TWP
• RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE
• SOUTH TOMS RIVER BORO
• TEANECK TWP
• TINTON FALLS BORO
• UPPER SADDLE RIVER BORO
• WASHINGTON TWP
• WESTWOOD BORO
• WOODBURY CITY
• WOOD-RIDGE BORO