In 2024, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin created a “gun free zone” registry and distributed stickers to participants. Information was requested on whether or not the AG’s office corresponded with the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control on compelling businesses to register. After over six months, the request was answered with nothing substantial returned – per se.
Shortly after NYSRPA v. Bruen, New Jersey legislators crafted a stringent Bruen-response bill. The bill, given the name the “carry-killer,” was enacted into law in December of 2022. Of the many things the new law did, defining new so-called “sensitive locations” was one of the new regulations. By statute, establishments selling alcohol for consumption on the premises became gun free zones.
Temporary restraining orders as well as a preliminary injunction were ordered in federal court when the law was challenged. The District Court of New Jersey restrained the state from enforcing much of the new law. New Jersey applied for a stay at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The stay from the circuit court gutted much of the opinion from the lower court. A provision left on the books since mid 2023 is the prohibition on carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises.
The gun free zone registry that Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office created did two things. It registered the location as a gun free zone. Then in turn, the AG’s office sent registrants stickers noting the same.
Anecdotal reports started coming in online groups and forums about the registry. Second-hand information was stating that businesses such as liquor stores were being told by officials they had to register. No one went on the record to collaborate these claims. Liquor stores are not sensitive locations under the new law.
In attempts to verify the claims, several Open Public Records Act requests were filed with the AG’s records department as well as the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The information that was being requested had to do with communications between the AG’s office and businesses, and the ABC and businesses.
Those OPRAs requesting communications pertaining to gun free zones and or sensitive locations and businesses were all denied. The records departments stated the requests were overbroad. They further stated that the OPRA process isn’t supposed to be used to gather information, but rather provide records.
The denials of OPRA requests concerning such correspondence raised suspicions.
Without being supplied any policy letters or correspondence sent directly from the N.J. government to the businesses, in addition to having no one going on the record, there’s no verifying the allegations.
However, two OPRAs stayed open from the summer of 2024 and were just closed a few weeks ago. The requests dealt specifically with communications between the AG and ABC.
Why the records departments took over half a year to fulfill the requests is not apparent. The results were a pile of mostly publicly available documents and announcements that were emailed between the offices. Further, a former OPRA request found the AG’s records department receives less than one request a day. Why the delay?
The only meaningful document that was in the results was one that’s been publicly available since issuance. “AN 2024-01 – Notice to the Industry Regarding Firearms in Bars and Restaurants” discusses gun free zones.
From the notice:
Licensees are reminded that at this time, State law prohibits the carrying or possession of firearms on their premises. For the purpose of informing the general public that firearms are not permitted, licensees are also encouraged to post signs stating that under New Jersey law firearms are not permitted on the premises.
To assist in this effort, the Office of the Attorney General has created “Gun Free Zone” stickers that may be used to effectuate the notice described above. These stickers are available free of charge; information on how to obtain them can be found on the ABC website. Signs and/or stickers should be conspicuously posted at the primary entrance(s) of the establishment.
The question that needs to be raised is, is this “encouragement” by the Division considered compelling speech? The statute does not make it necessary to post a given property, but the government agency states that businesses which sell alcohol for consumption on the premises are “encouraged to post signs.” The ABC is responsible for regulating the issuance of liquor licenses to businesses in the State of New Jersey.
The Supreme Court opinion NRA v. Vullo deals extensively with the concept of a governmental body punishing a private entity over their views.
From NRA v. Vullo:
At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society. The Clause prohibits government entities and actors from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
Could the encouragement from the ABC be enough to chill a private business into posting their property – regardless of whether a firearm can be legally carried there – under the assumption they’d fall out of favor with the Division if they did not? What about businesses that would allow carry, ideologically, however it’s not permissible due to law? Being compelled to post a sign would go against their First Amendment right.
The Open Public Records Act request that languished for a half-year opens the door for more questions, rather than answers. Further, the denial of sharing any correspondence that was directly sent to businesses on the topic of posting properties as gun free zones can be viewed as suspect.
Without businesses willing to go on the record to discuss what the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control – or the attorney general – has said via correspondence and or phone calls, there’s no way to definitively state that speech is being compelled.
Given the circumstances, the silence from these businesses may infer there’s a chilling of expression going on. This would not be the first time a private citizen/business was afraid to speak out against the very agency that controls their sustenance or granting of freedoms.
Meanwhile, New Jersians have been waiting since the fall of 2023 for an opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on sensitive locations and other issues with the new law.
Editor’s Note: Today is John Petrolino’s fourth anniversary as a Bearing Arms contributor, and I’m so thrilled that he’s able to provide readers like yourself with enterprise reporting on Second Amendment issues. Help us continue to expose the anti-gun bureaucracy in New Jersey and elsewhere by becoming a VIP member of Bearing Arms and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Read the full article here
