By Dana Difilippo
Still, the judges pushed back on the state on several issues.
Several sensitive places deemed gun-free zones, like schools and nursing homes, were included because “vulnerable people” congregate there.
Porter questioned the state’s definition of vulnerable people: “If the rationale is vulnerability, isn’t an adult male as vulnerable, since he can’t carry, as a child in that sensitive place against someone who is, in violation of the law, shooting guns?”
The law’s $50 fee to support crime victims also raised judges’ eyebrows, with Porter asking why the state is charging people a fee to exercise a constitutional right.
Law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t have to compensate someone else’s crime victim, added attorney Erin Murphy, who represents several of the gun owner plaintiffs.
“To attribute costs for someone who’s lawful and has never used their firearm or shot someone or caused mayhem or disorder, that’s the issue. How can you assess that cost to someone?” Murphy said.
Cai explained the state has long charged for gun permits but hadn’t raised the price in decades, so the new fee merely aims to keep up with inflation. It also will help cover the increased policing costs the state anticipates as more people take guns into public places, she added. The state police commissioner said last year he expected more than 200,000 gun owners would apply for gun carry permits in the wake of Bruen; the Attorney General’s Office is collecting that data but hasn’t released it yet.
Chung and Porter raised concerns about the law’s requirement that gun permit applicants present “reputable” people to serve as character references for them.
“Background checks are objective. This seems pretty subjective,” Porter said.
Chung agreed, saying: “Who decides who’s reputable?”
Cai had a very Jersey response to that question.
“I suppose, your honor, if your reference is Tony Soprano, that would probably be a problem,” she said. “And I think the law limits it to people who are not related to you, so your grandmother could not vouch for you. But it’s just another citizen who knows you, who has information about your propensity to harm yourself or others.”
A decision in the case could take months.
Credit: New Jersey Monitor 
