In a just society, there has to be one set of laws for everyone. Each person must be held to the same legal standard. In theory, that's what we have, though in practice, it's iffy at best.
But New Jersey wants different standards on gun laws.
See, as one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, New Jersey lawmakers are required to adhere to the same gun control laws as the peons who vote for them and pay their salaries.
So, naturally, they think there should be a different set of rules for them.
In a jaw-dropping display of hypocrisy, New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a bill that would give themselves and their top staffers sweeping firearm privileges—privileges they continue to deny the average law-abiding citizen.
Assembly Bill A5958, introduced on July 24, 2025, by Assemblymen Robert Auth (R-39) and Gregory Myhre (R-9), with co-sponsorship from Assemblyman Sean Kean, seeks to exempt elected officials and their chiefs of staff from nearly all of the state’s draconian gun laws. Under the proposal, they would be allowed to carry handguns without a permit, possess rifles and shotguns without a Firearms Purchaser ID, and transport firearms throughout the state—all as long as they complete a state-approved training course.
This comes even as the rest of New Jersey residents continue to be bound by some of the most burdensome gun laws in the nation.
A Two-Tier System of Rights
As it stands, ordinary New Jerseyans must navigate a bureaucratic maze just to exercise basic Second Amendment rights—enduring long waits, multiple and endless background checks, permitting processes, and potential criminal penalties for violations.
Yet A5958 creates a privileged class of gun carriers: politicians and their chosen aides.
The bill plainly states that “a person who is an elected official… shall be exempt from the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-5,” which currently criminalizes most forms of firearm possession without government-issued credentials or carved out exceptions. This immunity would last the full duration of the politician’s term. Their appointed chief of staff would also gain the same immunity, but only while “in the actual performance of [their] official duties.”
Not only no, but hell no.
I'd say this is the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time, but I live in a world where AI avatars of school shooting victims (and journalists willing to "interview" them) exist, apparently, so it's not.
Still, this is patently absurd.
I've been pretty vocal about opposing laws that exempt police officers from any gun control measures, but at least the police aren't voting on whether or not they should be exempt. They're mostly passive participants in the process, much like the rest of us. They can lobby for it, but they're not the ultimate deciders on this sort of thing.
This is different.
This is a case of politicians trying to exempt themselves from the laws they created. Sort of.
See, the three sponsors are all Republicans, so my guess is that they voted against the gun control proposals that came across the legislature while they were in office. That's just a guess, though, because being Republican doesn't automatically make anyone pro-gun, but most are at least anti-gun control--yes, there's a difference--and so it's probably a safe enough guess.
Yet should this law pass, it still empowers anti-gun lawmakers to ignore every gun control law on the books. It's a terrible idea on every level, and yet, this was proposed for some moronic reason.
Sure, it might highlight some hypocrisy among anti-gun lawmakers, but would that actually change anything? Most anti-gunners figure they can be trusted with guns, but you can't. This won't change anything on that front, so why do it?
Someone in New Jersey needs to get some sense smacked into them (metaphorically, as this is not a call to violence, and it's ridiculous that people can't seem to see a metaphor anymore, and I have to spell it out).
