New Jersey Appellate Court Issues Kafka-esque Decision in Carry Case

New Jersey is one of many states that prohibit adults under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm, even they’re legally eligible to possess one. And when three young adults who were facing accusations of illegal gun possession challenged their indictments as a violation of their Second Amendment rights last year, a judge agreed and dismissed the charges. 

Prosecutors appealed, however, and this week the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court reinstated the charges for the dumbest of reasons. 

We conclude defendants lacked standing to raise their Second Amendment claims because they failed to apply for a handgun carry permit. 

Why on earth would someone apply for a carry permit knowing they would be turned down because of their age? In order to apply for a permit an applicant has to fork over $200, which isn’t refunded if you end up getting denied. It’s absolutely ridiculous to demand that someone waste hundreds of dollars just to be able to raise a claim that their civil rights were violated if they ever get arrested for carrying without a permit. 

The first court to hear the motions to dismiss got it right, but the appellate court rejected its reasoning out of hand.

The motion court concluded Wade was not controlling here because i twould have been futile for defendants to apply for a handgun carry permit, given the categorical prohibition on issuing such permits to applicants under twenty one years old. The motion court also speculated that defendants’ applications, had they been filed, might not even have been accepted by authorities responsible for processing such applications because of defendants’ ages. There is, however, no evidence in the record supporting that speculation.

It’s not a matter of speculation to state that it would have been futile for these young adults to have applied for a permit to carry, even if it could be a matter of debate whether or not their applications would have been accepted. There was no way that either of these three would have been approved for a carry permit based solely on their age, but the appellate court essentially set up an impossible standard in order to avoid the real elephant in the courtoom: does New Jersey’s carry ban for young adults violate their Second Amendment rights? 

To add insult to injury, the appellate court claims that it’s not clear the defendants would have been denied a permit solely because of their age, but won’t give them the opportunity to prove otherwise.

The record contains no evidence that any of the defendants would have satisfied the numerous statutory requirements other than the age requirement had they applied for a handgun carry permit. Although Phillips’s counsel and Pinkett’s counsel submitted certifications in support of their clients’ dismissal motions, neither certification addressed the statutory requirements for a handgun carry permit. Preston’s counsel did not submit a certification.We are, therefore, unable to find that defendants’ purported right to carry a handgun in public was abridged by the statutes’ age requirement or that they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the weapon possession charges they face. 

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments, including their request to remand these matters to the Law Division for an evidentiary hearing with respect to whether they would have satisfied the then-existing statutory criteria for issuance of a handgun carry permit other than the age requirement, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

An atrocious decision from one of the most Second Amendment-hostile states in the country. These three defendants could still appeal to the state’s Supreme Court, and I hope they do, but I’d be shocked if they’re granted the relief they deserve. The appellate court appears to have figured out a nice legal trick to keep young adults from even challenging New Jersey’s draconian gun laws, and I suspect a majority of justices on the state’s highest court would be happy to play along if given the chance.