The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division has ruled that the state's gun-carry permit statute is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This decision affects defendants Daandre J. Wade and Malik T. Stringer, who were charged with unlawful possession of handguns without permits. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal landscape surrounding gun ownership and permits in New Jersey following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In May 2019, Wade and Stringer were found in possession of two loaded handguns while driving in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Neither had a permit to carry a handgun, leading to their indictment for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit. After the Supreme Court's ruling in Bruen, which struck down similar restrictions in New York, the defendants sought to dismiss their charges, arguing that New Jersey's gun-carry permit statute was unconstitutional.
The case reached the Appellate Division after a trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the charges, agreeing that the justifiable need provision of New Jersey's gun-carry permit statute was unconstitutional. The State appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Appellate Division.
The court ruled that while Wade and Stringer did not have standing to challenge the statutes because they had never applied for a permit, it decided to address the constitutional merits due to the significance of the issue. The court stated, "We hold that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 (2018) and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) were not facially unconstitutional because the justifiable need requirement set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c) (2018) was severable and the remaining provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 (2018), as well as N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1), were constitutional and enforceable."
The ruling emphasized that the defendants were required to have a permit to carry handguns outside their homes in 2019. The court reversed the trial court's order dismissing the charges and directed the trial court to reinstate the counts against Wade and Stringer.
This ruling has implications for future gun rights cases in New Jersey. It clarifies that the state can maintain its gun-permitting regime, which includes requirements for obtaining a permit. The decision reinforces the notion that while certain provisions may be unconstitutional, the overall framework of the law can still be valid and enforceable.
The court's decision also highlights the importance of applying for a permit before challenging its constitutionality. Defendants cannot simply disregard the law and claim it is unconstitutional without first seeking the necessary permits. This ruling may deter similar challenges from individuals who have not applied for permits, as they may lack the standing to contest the law.
Looking ahead, the State may continue to enforce its gun-permitting laws while ensuring they align with constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court. The ruling does not preclude future challenges to specific provisions of the law, especially as the legal landscape surrounding gun rights continues to evolve.
As for the current case, it can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details on any related cases were not available in the court filing. The ruling sets a precedent for how New Jersey courts may handle similar cases involving gun permits and Second Amendment rights in the future.