American gun control laws have been racist from their inception. Throughout the country’s history, racist lawmakers have imposed restrictions specifically intended to disarm Black Americans.
Advertisement
Not much has changed.
In 2024, racist politicians are enacting rules and laws that disproportionately hamper the ability of Black Americans to keep and bear arms. In New Jersey, this practice was recently exposed due to a disturbing but not surprising report from Bearing Arms’ John Petrolino, who found that Black New Jersey residents are being denied permits at double the rate of White residents.
According to the Attorney General’s data, there were 217 post-Bruen permit denials. Of those 217, 112 were because of N.J. 2C:58-3c (5). That provision of the law allows issuing authorities the ability to deny permit applications if they feel that it “would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare” should said applicant be issued a permit.
This data prompted Petrolino to contact the New Jersey Attorney General about the apparent racial disparity. In his message, he brought up the racial disparity in the number of residents denied permits under the “public health, safety, and welfare” provision and noted how it runs afoul of the Bruen and Heller Supreme Court decisions.
In Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in Bruen, which is consistent with footnote #9 from the majority opinion, we have the following:
“Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.”
Could the Attorney General please speak to why more than 50% of the permit to carry denials have come via subjective, case-by-case determinations? This practice is clearly against two Supreme Court Opinions which affirm the Second Amendment as a civil right for the People.
Advertisement
The “public health, safety, and welfare” provision is an arbitrary measure that gives government officials carte blanche to reject whomever they want when they are applying for a concealed carry permit. It is entirely subjective and vague, which is the point. It makes it easier to prevent people from carrying firearms.
This story reminds me of another I covered just after the Bruen decision when states like New Jersey, New York, California, and others were looking for legislative tricks that could help them subvert the ruling. New Jersey state lawmakers, while debating new gun control legislation, accidentally displayed their racial bias.
What occurred during an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting in New Jersey’s legislature provides a prime example. Lawmakers were debating Bill A4769, which proposes to further restrict citizens’ right to bear arms. It is designed to counteract the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a landmark case that substantially limited the ability of state and local governments to restrict the bearing of arms through onerous licensing requirements.
The New Jersey bill, passed last month, makes nearly the entire state a de facto “sensitive place” where citizens are not allowed to carry firearms. It also significantly increases the fees involved in obtaining a permit to carry, firearms ID card, or pistol purchaser’s permit while adding even more requirements.
And then they said the quiet part out loud.
“Does anybody really want to put more guns in the hands of people that live in Paterson and Newark and Elizabeth and Camden?” Assemblyman John McKeon said, arguing in favor of the legislation.
Of course, Newark and Elizabeth and Camden are predominantly populated by Black and Latino Americans. They also have some of the highest crime rates.
Advertisement
Apparently, folks like McKeon don’t believe Black folks, who are most likely to fall victim to violent crime, should possess the means by which they can defend themselves. Of course, this was the original intent of gun control laws, preventing Black Americans from defending themselves against violent racists. But now, they are intended to create more Black victims of crime.
Of course, this is not to say that the anti-gunners don’t eventually want everyone disarmed. This is certainly the objective – ensuring that only government officials can have firearms. However, it is clear that it is clear that Democrats are even more adamant about keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding Black Americans.