a. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holds significant implications for carrying a handgun in New Jersey and the law governing the issuance of permits to carry a handgun. The Bruen decision establishes that states cannot deny permits to carry a handgun to otherwise-qualified citizens who fail to show that they have the “proper cause” to carry a handgun. New Jersey law relies on a similar standard, considering whether an applicant has a “justifiable need,” in determining whether to issue a permit to carry a handgun.

b. In accordance with the precedent established in the Bruen decision, laws requiring showings of particularized need are no longer legally viable to determine whether a person may carry a handgun in public. The Bruen decision does make clear, however, that the Legislature can enact laws to protect our communities from threats to public health, safety, and welfare posed by gun violence, which take into account as appropriate the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling while continuing to promote and enhance public safety.

c. Statistics show that expanding handgun carrying creates safety risks, helping to fuel the epidemic of gun violence. For example, a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the estimated average rate of officer-involved shootings increased by 12.9 percent in 10 states that relaxed restrictions between 2014 and 2020 on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public. Accordingly, evidence demonstrates that more guns on the streets can translate into more acts of gun violence. To mitigate the impact of having more people carrying guns in public places, steps must be taken to better ensure that those who exercise the right to carry are responsible, law-abiding, and appropriately trained individuals who would not pose undue safety risks if armed in public places.

d. In Bruen, the Supreme Court recognized that states may prohibit individuals who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from carrying firearms in public, and endorsed the use of “licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.” Although the Court did not provide a complete list of lawful requirements, it specifically cited a “background check, mental health check, training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements” as permissible. The purpose of these checks, the Court explained, is to “ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'” It is thus important to bolster and improve the process in this State for ensuring that only such individuals possess and carry firearms. Toward that end, this act strengthens the criteria and background investigation requirements that are used to determine whether an applicant is qualified to carry a firearm in New Jersey.

e. This act also designates places in which the carrying of a firearm or destructive device is prohibited. Previously, application of the justifiable need standard minimized the serious dangers of misuse and accidental use inherent in the carrying of handguns in a public place. Given the likelihood that a much greater number of individuals will now qualify to carry handguns in public, it is now both necessary and appropriate to clearly identify in the law those sensitive places where, due to heightened public safety concerns, carrying a dangerous, potentially lethal device or weapon, including a handgun, is not permissible. These prohibitions are based on common sense principles and historical analogues.

f. Notwithstanding its rejection of a particularized need standard, the Bruen decision recognizes that the carrying of firearms in sensitive places can “be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.” Indeed, the Court assumed it settled that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitives places such as schools and government buildings,” as well as other places such as “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses,” are “longstanding” and not subject to disputes regarding their constitutionality. The Court added that other “sensitive place” regulations may be permissible if “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding” – that is, “relevantly similar” to historical analogues.

g. The sensitive-place prohibitions on dangerous weapons set forth in this act are rooted in history and tradition. They are analogous to historical laws that can be found from the Founding era to Reconstruction, which are also found in modern laws in many states. History and tradition support at least the following location-based restrictions on carrying firearms:

(1) Places that are the site of core constitutional activity, such as but not limited to the exercise of First Amendment rights, or that are otherwise vital to the functioning of democracy and our system of government. That includes prohibitions of firearms in facilities within the criminal justice system;

(2) Schools, universities, other educational institutions, where people assemble for educational purposes and for the purposes of teaching, learning, research, and the pursuit of knowledge;

(3) Parks and other recreation spaces, including locations where children congregate;

(4) Locations that protect vulnerable classes of people, such as the young and the frail;

(5) Places where intoxicating substances are sold, places where large groups of individuals congregate, and places where volatile conditions may pose a threat to public safety; and

(6) Various forms of transportation and public infrastructure, whose safety, security, and stability are critical to supporting social function.

h. The historical record also supports restriction of firearm possession on private property when the owner has not given their consent. Many states require a property owner’s permission before another may enter private dwellings and private lands with a firearm or other weapons. Requiring consent from the property owner before carrying weapons onto private property is also in line with both the reasonable expectations and property rights of New Jersey property owners.

i. Additionally, the fees to obtain a firearms purchaser identification permit or a permit to purchase a handgun in New Jersey were initially set by statute over 50 years ago at $5 and $2, respectively, and in over a half century the law has never been changed to increase these fees, notwithstanding the impact of inflation, increasing costs of background checks and related investigations, and the investment made over the years to technologically upgrade the firearms application and registration system established and maintained by the New Jersey State Police.

j. Accordingly, the Legislature finds it is necessary and proper to revise this State’s procedural and substantive laws related to firearms to update the process and the standards applicable to firearm purchase and possession as well as our handgun carry law, and to continue to promote public safety and reduce gun violence in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment principles articulated by the current Supreme Court jurisprudence. These revisions will focus on factors other than the need or purpose a person may assert as justification to carry a handgun, such as the person’s background and qualifications, with the ultimate goal of keeping New Jersey streets and neighborhoods safe from gun violence.

L.2022, c.131, s.1.