New Jersey poised to enact ‘nation’s strongest’ gun law after Supreme Court ruling

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s top lawmakers unveiled sweeping gun legislation Thursday that would significantly restrict when and where guns can be carried outside of the home, a bill they touted as “the nation’s strongest measure concerning concealed carry.”

The bill would, among other things, require people wanting to carry guns in public to purchase liability insurance — the first statewide mandate of its kind in the nation should the bill become law — and banning guns from being carried in 25 broad categories, including but not limited to government buildings, health care facilities, airports, casinos and private properties where the owners have not given express permission to have guns. Violations would be deemed a third-degree crime.

“My personal belief is that our way of life is being threatened, essentially, by certain things that have gone on in the federal government,” state Senate President Nick Scutari said during a Statehouse press conference announcing the proposal. “We need to address that [with this] particular piece of legislation that we're going to drop today.”

Gov. Phil Murphy has vowed to sign the measure, which comes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year which effectively broadened the scope of who can carry guns in public. The proposal outlined on Thursday broadly mirrors what Murphy, a progressive Democrat, has previously proposed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The Governor’s goal was ensuring that residents of and visitors to our state could be confident in their safety in sensitive locations such as daycares, hospitals, stadiums and public transit,” Murphy spokesperson Alyana Alfaro-Post said in a statement. "The administration has worked closely with the Legislature to draft legislation over the last few months, and the Governor looks forward to signing this bill into law after it moves through the legislative process.”

The bill, the broad outlines of which were first reported by POLITICO on Wednesday, is now on the legislative fast track. Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin said it would be heard in committees on Monday and voted on in the lower house on Oct. 27, although Scutari said, “I can't say the same for” the Senate. He did not elaborate.

Assemblymember Joe Danielsen (D-Somerset) will be the prime sponsor in the Assembly; Scutari will be a prime sponsor in the Senate.

“I'm a gun owner, I enjoy my guns often,” Danielsen said during Thursday's press conference. “But I enjoy the right to have those guns and to use them responsibly. This bill provides zero conflict.”

The proposal comes as new gun laws New York recently enacted in response to the Supreme Court's ruling are facing ongoing litigation. A federal judge recently invalidated key parts of New York’s law, but a federal appeals court on Wednesday allowed it to remain in place for the time being.

Coughlin said the proposal unveiled Thursday would be “more stringent” than New York’s law, and in a press release, lawmakers said they anticipate a legal challenge should the bill become law.

“We’re doing this because we know that gun safety does not conflict with safe gun ownership,” Coughlin said during the press conference. “While I respect the institution of the United States Supreme Court, candidly on this one, they got it wrong. The introduction of more guns into the public sphere makes us all less safe.”

A legal challenge could be coming from the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, which has prevously challenged New Jersey’s gun laws, should the proposal become law.

"These attacks by New Jersey lawmakers on right to carry are a big middle finger to the U.S Supreme Court,” Scott Bach, the group's executive director, said in a statement. “We look forward to overturning these measures in court and forcing the state to pay our legal fees.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled, 6-3, in June in favor of gun owners who want to carry guns outside the home. The ruling upended gun laws in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Hawaii. In New Jersey, which already has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, the state’s “justifiable need” requirement for gun carry permits — which effectively barred most residents from being eligible for a carry permit — was voided by the court’s decision.

The proposal stands to impact a large swath of New Jerseyans; Coughlin said around 300,000 carry permit applications have been filed in New Jersey the Supreme Court’s decision.

In addition to the insurance mandate, the new bill would require prospective gun carriers to undergo rigorous training requirements, including online courses, in-person classes and target training, according to a draft of the legislation shared with POLITICO. People who carry guns would also be restricted from using, consuming or being under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or other controlled substances. Being in violation of that would be a fourth-degree crime and could lead to a loss of permit. Fees to apply for a carry permit would also go up from $2 to $200.

The insurance mandate would be the first statewide requirement in the country, although in January, San Jose, Calif., will soon begin requiring all gun owners to obtain liability insurance.

In New Jersey, legislative Republicans, who generally oppose adding gun control measures to the state’s strict laws, pushed back against the proposal.

“This is another instance where law-abiding citizens are the target of Democrats,” Assembly Republican Leader John DiMaio (R-Warren) said in a statement. “Criminals aren’t following the laws now and they won’t follow these either.”

State Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester), who has said difficulties in obtaining a concealed carry permit motivated him to seek office, said in a statement Thursday that Democrats are trying to "override the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision."

“We have the strictest gun laws in the country, and this is yet another clear example of the Democrats’ open hostility to the Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole," Durr said. "Protecting public safety also includes protecting the individual right to self-defense, yet Democrats take every opportunity to prevent people from protecting themselves. ... Criminals are the problem, not law-abiding citizens who have rights."