New Jersey Called His Speech a Temperament Problem. SAF Took It to the State Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment Foundation posted its amicus brief on September 8, 2026, in Matter of the Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R., New Jersey Supreme Court Docket No. 092287, on petition from the Appellate Division’s June 18, 2026 judgment in No. A-003192-24. The brief is dated September 8. Counsel is Daniel L. Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki.

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c) lists objective FPIC disqualifiers — felony, mental confinement, restraining order, age. Subsection (c)(5) is the other door: issuance “would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” SAF’s press release says A.A.R. was denied “in large part due to his online speech,” is not federally prohibited, and “holds carry permits in ten other states, including traditionally strict states like Massachusetts and Maryland.” The brief names Connecticut and Rhode Island in that ten as well. SAF is not asking anyone to admire the speech. The brief calls the views “despicable.” The constitutional point is the opposite: protected speech cannot be converted into a gun ban.

Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education: “Bruen is clear: licensing officials may apply narrow, objective, and definite criteria. They may not sit in judgment of an applicant’s ‘character’ or ‘temperament.’ If ten other states, including several with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, issued this applicant carry permits, New Jersey’s outlier denial is powerful evidence of the very subjectivity the Supreme Court forbade.” The New Jersey Supreme Court has not granted the petition. This is a request for review, not a strike-down.