On October 19, a variety of bills relating to firearms were added to the NJ Assembly register. These were all preliminary entries with no summaries or bill texts, so we must do some deductive reasoning to figure out what is going on here.
One of the proposed bills borders on absurdity. New Jersey State Assembly Bill A4980 would prohibit the sale of ammunition in a vending machine. This bill, we hope, won’t even make it to a committee because, as we all know, selling ammunition in a vending machine is already statutorily impossible in New Jersey. I suspect this bill popped up because some group like Brady or Everytown sent out a nationwide proposal to state legislators on their mailing list in response to some national news stories about a company named American Rounds that has begun to sell ammunition that way in Texas, Alabama, and Oklahoma. Some anti-gun NJ Assembly members were too lazy or stupid to realize that NJ law already functionally prohibits this due to the enhanced record keeping FFL’s must submit in connection with most ammunition sales. If this bill makes it to a committee, we plan on focusing our testimony not on the bill itself, but just how lazy, stupid, and idiotic our legislators are. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The next three bills that popped up are a bit more complex. Based on the titles, these bills would seem to focus on gun crimes. But taken in context, these could be very problematic for two distinct and equally important reasons.
- There is a strong possibility that they are being proposed to target civilians legally carrying firearms in public.
- They further criminalize the mere possession of a firearm in public without the necessary government permission slips, which makes worse the socio-economic and racial disparity in New Jersey’s firearms licensing regime. To be clear, a law criminalizing the possession of unlicensed firearms in public is not necessarily problematic on its face, except that in New Jersey our oppressive firearms licensing laws make it nearly impossible for economically disadvantaged people in the state to legally protect themselves. This issue was at the heart of several amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in Bruen that we think are illustrative of the issue. Often, people in this category live in the most dangerous parts of the state and are therefore forced to make the hard decision that many folks on gun forums joke about: is it better to be judged by 12 or carried by 6? People living in our inner cities have to make those choices in real life and do so every day. And it’s because our laws give them no viable option to legally acquire and carry firearms.
Bill A4976 – Establishes crime of reckless discharge of firearm.
Close scrutiny is going to be needed for this bill. Discharging a firearm in public in the context most people would worry about is already a crime. If I just walk out into the street and pull a trigger, I can be charged with any number of offenses including reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and attempted murder. So why would we need an extra law on this? Firing in a defensive situation would mitigate or provide an affirmative defense to those other crimes. So now there would be a separate offense to use when a defensive purpose would take those other crimes off the table for a prosecutor.
Bill A4977 – Requires public safety risk assessment to include additional consideration for firearms as public safety risk.
A public safety assessment is part of the process now in criminal proceedings that has replaced our cash bail system. If you have been charged with a crime, the court will interview a detained suspect to determine whether they should be released pending trial or held. That risk assessment process takes a number of factors into account, importantly, the severity of the crime and the likelihood of the suspect failing to appear if released. Adding “firearms” to the list of risk factors, on its face, seems superfluous. In factoring the severity of the crime, the use of a firearm is already an aggravating factor for almost every crime. For example, the crime of robbery is made more severe if a firearm is used in the robbery. So courts are already factoring this in making decisions in whether to detain or release suspects held on these charges. Adding “firearm” would only make sense if there was no other charge involved, i.e. the only crime being considered is the possession of a firearm. This could ramp the severity of being charged with carrying a firearm in a “sensitive place” for a PTC holder. It could also ramp the severity of simply being in possession of a firearm in public without a government permission slip.
Bill A4981 – Permits court to take additional time to consider pretrial release or pretrial detention when firearm offense is involved.
The wording on this bill will matter greatly because again, if this is overly broad, it could increase detention time for defensive gun uses, a technical violation of NJ’s “sensitive place” laws, or, as above, those charged with simple possession of a firearm with no other context. To be clear, the timeframe for judges to make these determinations and the process of public safety risk assessments already give judges in NJ a wide berth. If a judge is faced with a criminal defendant who appears to be associated with some dangerous gang, or has a long list of prior convictions, they can take their time and they can detain them for the duration of pre-trial proceedings regardless of the risk factor calculations (or, as is often the case, they can RELEASE them regardless of the public safety risk assessment). So what is the potential purpose of this law? To encourage judges to target those with a “firearms” related offense when no other circumstances are in play.
We’ll be tracking these bills closely. If these bills get published and make it to committee, if they negatively affect law-abiding gun owners or further the racially disparate impact of NJ gun laws, we will be putting that on the record in Trenton and calling for gun owners across the state to join us in opposing these bills.
