New Jersey Attorney General Responds to Hemani

The U.S. v. Hemani case is sending shockwaves across the country. The New Jersey Office of Attorney General commented on the opinion when queried about it and it’s — interesting.

What a whirlwind couple of weeks in the United States with U.S. Supreme Court opinions flooding the halls of jurisprudence. Naturally, at Bearing Arms we’ve had our eyes cast on two cases ripe for opinions: U.S. v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. The case less controversial to more progressive jurisdictions was Hemani, dealing with so-called “unlawful” users of drugs. No press release came from New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport’s office about the opinion, so they were queried.

The 46-word statement we received from Davenport’s office doesn’t really address the inquiry. Press officials were asked if “the State (will) be changing firearms-related forms to remove any questions and/or mention about the use of marijuana,” what the state’s position is on the decision, and if they plan on making any changes.

“In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court once again made clear that many gun safety laws—including categorical prohibitions on firearm ownership—are consistent with the Second Amendment,” said a spokesperson from Davenport’s office. “The Attorney General remains committed to enforcing and defending New Jersey’s gun safety laws, which make us all safer.”

Interesting take.

Earlier this week News2A pointed out a contradiction concerning civilian gun owners, marijuana, and the police. They noted that on a federal level “change of some sort is coming, but New Jersey (and many other blue states) have instituted significant double standards on the topic.”

New2A explained that “in 2023, under then-Attorney General Matthew Platkin, the state revised its law enforcement drug testing policy to largely exempt officers from marijuana/cannabis testing.”

That policy specifically precludes New Jersey police officers from being tested for marijuana/cannabis use unless “the officer is assigned to a federal task force; the officer holds a federally regulated license, which requires testing (e.g. pilot or commercial driver’s license); the law enforcement agency is specifically required to test by the terms of a federal contract or federal grant; or as outlined in the reasonable suspicion sections II.C.2 and II.C.3 herein).”

With a ruling from the high court in Hemani stating that a full categorical ban as outlined and as applied to the use of marijuana isn’t consistent with the Second Amendment, one would think there’d be non-compulsory changes to New Jersey’s policies. While Davenport’s office says some categorical bans may meet constitutional muster, although their language is not so mitigated, they completely dodge the question about gun owners getting down with the green in the Garden State.

Shortly after the NYSRPA v. Bruen opinion was released in 2022, then-Attorney General Matthew Platkin immediately put a stop to the enforcement of New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard as an eligibility requirement to get a permit to carry. Hemani must not be impressive enough for New Jersey officials to make similar and expeditious and preemptive moves.

This is yet another case where the New Jersey police are given more latitude, rights, and privilege than the rest of the non-ruling class.

With Hemani, the state has an easy out to equalize the playing field without totally upsetting their base. We’ll be watching New Jersey to see if they do the right thing in the upcoming weeks. There are plenty of both medical and recreational marijuana users that deserve to be repatriated with their rights in New Jersey and further litigation should not have to occur to make this happen.