In layman’s terms: A New Jersey Appeals Court says that New Jersey’s permitting scheme and prohibitions for firearms for adults under 21 is constitutional.
On March 19, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld firearms charges against a legal adult under 21 years of age, claiming that New Jersey’s prohibitions are “constitutional because the statute is consistent with our Nation’s ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.'”
In 2021, then 19-year-old defendant, Jahmere Glover (along with two co-defendants), was arrested and charged with:
- Second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1))
- Second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1))
- Fourth-degree possession of a handgun while under the age of 21, in violation of (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-6.1)
Mr. Glover challenged counts two and three on the grounds of Second and Fourteenth Amendment violations. In a slightly complicated outcome, the trial court denied the dismissal of count two (possession without a permit) but granted the dismissal for count three. Subsequently, Mr. Glover appealed the motion regarding possession without a permit, and the state appealed the order dismissing count three, possession under 21.
The appeals court granted both appeals and consolidated them, and then gave leave to the New Jersey Attorney General to file an amicus brief in the case. It issued its 32-page opinion on March 19.
Coming as a surprise to nobody, “The Attorney General supports the State’s position, arguing that restrictions on firearm possession by individuals younger than 21 years of age are consistent with the restrictions that existed when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.”
The appellate court cites the text of the Second Amendment and attempts to apply the two-step process in Bruen. It ultimately decided Mr. Glover lacked standing for the argument against the permitting scheme.
The court references only the concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh (not the majority opinion), which states, “the Court’s decision [in Bruen] does not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.” This approach has been an ongoing problem with Second Amendment cases and one that will likely need to be addressed again by the Supreme Court.
“Defendant does not dispute that he did not apply for a permit. Instead, he argues that it would have been futile because he was under the age of twenty-one….We disagree.” The court says the defendant should have tried anyway in order to have standing: “At a minimum, to be law-abiding and to have standing, defendant should have applied for the permit and challenged the age restriction if he was denied a permit only because of his age.”
The court’s treatment of charge three (possession under 21) is particularly twisted. It references discussions of who “the people” are when it comes to Second Amendment protection. It acknowledges that people 18 and over are legal adults under New Jersey law. It even concludes, “We are, therefore, convinced that people between the ages of eighteen and twenty are included in ‘the people’ protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
If there is a legal version of the concept of “jumping the shark,” this is where it occurs: “Having made that determination, however, it is still critical to recognize that people under the age of twenty-one did not have all the rights of people over the age of twenty-one in 1791.”
The court regurgitates a number of debunked arguments attempting to infer founding-era age restrictions, and ironically goes on to cite a disallowed, subjective position from the state Attorney General who wrote, “The Attorney General has pointed out that numerous studies have demonstrated the impulsive nature of persons under the age of twenty-one,” as if any of these provide a significant case for abridging the rights of legal adults.
Without irony, the court also acknowledges, “New Jersey law expressly allows persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty to possess and use guns if they are in the military.”
In the end, the court affirmed both of the challenged charges and remanded them to the lower court for sentencing.
The issue of firearms restrictions for adults under 21 has created circuit splits in courts across the country. Meanwhile, the Bondi DOJ has taken the position that such restrictions are constitutional.
We suppose we should be thanking the court and the attorney general for further supporting the argument that the founding in 1791, and not the Reconstruction Era, should be the timeframe to be considered when determining the constitutionality of firearms regulations.
