Drake v. Jerejian

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

At issue is the State of New Jersey's contention that not issuing CCW permits unless the applicant has "demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun" including providing evidence of "the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks" is acceptable.

From the petition: "If the right to keep and bear arms can constitutionally be so restricted as to require a showing of 'justifiable need' in order for a citizen to exercise it, future federal regulations could effectively preempt the carefully constructed permitting schemes of forty-three states with less restrictive requirements."

IMNSHO, if it should be acceptable upon evidencing threats, imminent danger and/or a record of prior attacks, to grant a common citizen a permit to carry a concealed firearm, how can it be reasonably be justified that prohibiting this right to an otherwise acceptable applicant based only on his or her lack of prior victimizations or the better discretion any prospective assailants having not issued any threats? If I have to be victimized, either by threat or actual assault, to exercise what has been acknowledged as a right, I am in the eyes of government a person worthy of general distrust.

[ileus]

1. The 1%ers live off victims.

It's what they do...it's who they are. They're invested in assuring more folks are victims to further their agenda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. It's fine if I want to:

- buy insurance in case my car is stolen
- save money for retirement in case social security isn't enough
- have a fire extinguisher in case of a fire
...


How is it reasonable to believe that a right to self-defense only exists after I've been a victim at least once? We've recognized that healthcare is both necessary and expensive. Our country has taken steps to give more people a means to deal with that reality. What if you had to declare bankruptcy due to hospital and medical debts before you were allowed to enroll in subsidized health insurance?