An Act concerning firearms and supplementing Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. The Legislature finds and declares that:

a. Following N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), states may no longer use subjective standards when issuing licenses to possess or carry firearms by law-abiding citizens. In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court determined that means-end tests concerning firearm regulations are not permissible under the Second Amendment. The framework established in Bruen requires courts to determine whether modern firearm restrictions align with historical firearm regulations and are comparable to historical analogues.

b. In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the United States Supreme Court concluded that, consistent with the Second Amendment, an individual could be disarmed temporarily if a court finds that the individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another.

c. In Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d. Cir. 2023), it was determined that even those with a criminal history could not be stripped of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when the person's criminal history was limited to nonviolent offenses.

d. In the context of constitutional law, a suspect class is a group of people who have historically been subject to discrimination based on shared characteristics, and courts apply heightened scrutiny to laws that have a disparate impact on suspect classes.

e. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause guarantees that people similarly situated will be treated similarly by states under the law. Under the holding in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), laws that treat members of a suspect class differently is subjected to the highest standard of court review, the strict scrutiny standard. A will be overturned unless the disparate treatment is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public purpose. In Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988), the court noted that the strict scrutiny standard is utilized by courts to examine classifications affecting fundamental rights.

f. A law is invalid on its face if it openly discriminates against a suspect class, but laws can have a disparate impact on suspect classes which are not plainly evident in the statutory text. When disparate impact on a suspect class arises from policy choices that are not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest, the Legislature should review those laws to ensure that New Jersey residents are treated fairly and equally under the law, particularly in situations impacting the fundamental rights of the residents of this State.

g. In June of 2023, the New Jersey Attorney General issued Directive No. 2023-02, which required that State law enforcement agencies acting as licensing authorities for firearms related permits and licenses submit a report to the Attorney General regarding the number of licenses issued and the number of licenses denied and the basis for those denials over distinct time periods. A Directive by the Attorney General can be withdrawn or amended at the Attorney General's discretion.

h. Studies have shown that licensing criteria based on subjective standards lead to higher denial rates for applicants who are Black, indigenous, or otherwise people of color when compared to non-Hispanic, white applicants. A recent independent study was conducted by the civil rights group Rise Against Hate regarding New Jersey firearms licensing outcomes. That study suggests that the rate of permits denied based on subjective standards currently contained in New Jersey statutory law is significantly higher for Black applicants.

i. If there are material differences in firearms licensing and permitting outcomes with respect to suspect classes, both the public and the Legislature should consider that data, and to the extent that a pattern exists, the government should inquire as to the root cause of those disparate outcomes.

2. a. Each State and local law enforcement agency shall submit on a monthly basis to the Attorney General information concerning applications for permits to carry a handgun, permits to purchase a handgun, and firearm purchaser identification cards. The information shall include:

(1) the date of the application's submission;

(2) the county and municipality in which the application was submitted;

(3) the applicant's year of birth, race, ethnicity, and gender identity;

(4) whether the application has been approved or denied;

(5) the date of approval or denial; and

(6) the reason for denial, if applicable.

b. The Attorney General shall:

(1) compile data received pursuant to this section, which was submitted on or after June 23, 2022;

(2) issue an initial report containing the data compiled between June 23, 2022, and the first day of the second month following the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) and monthly reports thereafter; and

(3) make the initial and monthly reports available on the office's Internet website.

3. This act shall take effect immediately and shall be retroactive to June 23, 2022.

STATEMENT

This bill requires State and local law enforcement agencies to report certain firearm permit application data to the Attorney General and requires the Attorney General to issue and make public certain reports.

Under the bill, each law enforcement agency in the State is required to submit to the Office of the Attorney General anonymized data concerning certain information contained in permit to carry a handgun, permit to purchase a handgun, and firearm purchaser identification card applications that were approved or denied by a law enforcement agency.

The bill requires the submitted information to include:

(1) the date of application's submission;