New Jersey Allowed to Require ''Justifiable Need'' to Carry a Firearm in Public

[SecularMotion]

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms in self defense, guns rights advocates, led by the NRA, have challenged laws that have put restrictions on carrying guns in public. Their argument has been that these restrictions prevent them from protecting themselves in public. Many of these challenges have failed, with lower courts ruling that restrictions are in line with the ruling of District of Columbia v Heller, which said that handguns in the home were permissible for self defense.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The opinion even pointed out that laws banning concealed carry were permissible.

New Jersey's law is very strict and make it all but impossible for anyone not a member of law enforcement to carry a gun in public. It requires gun owners to indicate "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means" in order to get an open carry permit. Approval must be granted by the local police and a Superior Court judge.

The "justifiable need" requirement survived two lower court challenges, which were upheld in 2012 by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court ruling. This week, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, leaving in place the 3rd Circuit's ruling and New Jersey's law.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23619-new-jersey-allowed-to-require-justifiable-need-to-carry-a-firearm-in-public

[riqster]

1. Common sense prevails for a freakin' change.

[Jenoch]

2. I do not have a CCW permit.

What this topic appears to be is that only the wealthy and privileged class are able to get permits to carry in New Jersey (and New York too).

[spin]

5. Of course many in the rich and privileged class feel that only people like them should ...

be allowed to carry firearms in public.

After all, the mere fact that they are wealthy or celebrities proves that they are far superior to average people. The cream rises to the top.

[sarisataka]

3. Once celebrities

who favor strict gun control also adhere to the standard "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means" and go unarmed without armed bodyguards this hypocrisy shows the elitist division of the GC movement.

[Eleanors38]

13. Elitism: The froth off of horse's urine rises to the top.

[rrneck]

4. Soooo,

if you get assaulted that's proof that you are allowed to carry in case you get assaulted. Makes perfect sense.

[spin]

6. That makes sense if you are lucky enough to survive the first assault. I guess if you don't ...

you are shit out of luck.

Of course the real criminals will ignore this law and continue to carry. If they are caught, they will probably get a slap on the wrist and walk back out on the street where they will get a different gun and continue to carry. Eventually they will get caught after they shoot someone and then spend some serious time in prison.

For some reason it always seems politicians favor restricting honest citizens rather than focus on the criminal element that creates most problems.

[Straw Man]

7. Oops ...

Wrong thread. Never mind.

[S_B_Jackson]

8. New Jersey Allowed to Require "Justified Need".......for now.

but the matter isn't over. And the issue is going to the Supreme Court because the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have differing rulings.

It's very interesting reading the Peruta v. County of San Diego beginning on page 58.....That decision goes through an extensive review of why, in the opinion of the panel, the 3rd Circuit (as well as the 2nd and the 4th) reached incorrect decisions - essentially because they ignored the USSC's decisions in Heller and, to a lesser degree, [McDonald.

[jimmy the one]

9. horsy sauce, in a sense

The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court ruling. This week, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, leaving in place the 3rd Circuit's ruling and New Jersey's {may issue ccw} law

I wish I could find out how this was 'rejected', that is, was there a SC vote? or did cj Roberts decide it himself? what's the procedure anyone know?
For I think scalia would've loved to pervert the country into a shall issue 'State' (as in national polity, nyuck). Mr Humongous Ego is trying to win his own personal popularity contest, thinking most americans want this shall issue c.r.a.p..

jenoch: What this topic appears to be is that only the wealthy and privileged class are able to get permits to carry in New Jersey (and New York too).

What a bunch of horsypoop, the usual 2nd amendment mythology misrepresentation.
.. what may issue does, is PREVENT most of those people who shouldn't be carrying concealed guns everywhere they want, from doing so. For yes pilgrims, there ARE lots of people in the USA who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, even gunnuts have told me this over the years, & they weren't speaking only of criminals.
.. what may issue does, is allow people sitting in restaurants or in public, to notify management or call authority if they see someone with a pistol under his armpit or in his jacket.
.. what may issue does, is allow cops to question or arrest anyone in new jersey carrying a gun, to affirm whether he is legally entitled to carry it. Pro gun Georgia now DISALLOWS cops from even asking to see one's permit if they are carrying a concealed pistol, if he is otherwise acting properly. Gunnuts love to see them strut.

.. as far as 'only the wealthy & privileged class' are able to get ccw permits, another ruse, another 2ndA mythological canard, for all one needs do is demonstrate bona fide need & one can get a ccw permit & perhaps pay a fee which would be approx that of a shall issue permit; don't you even understand the background of may issue rules? You shouldn't be spreading these ugly lies about, people might think you an nra backed gunnut.
... pssst, wealthy & privileged class people would also need demonstrate need to get a ccw permit. Unless the current republican governor's policy would somehow allow them to bypass this, ya never know - you'll have to cross that bridge, when you get to it, 'rich folk'.

[S_B_Jackson]

10. The Supremes denied cert....

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

for Drake - the NJ decision by the 3rd Circuit - just as they did in Kachalsky (2nd Circuit) and Woolard (4th Circuit). Essentially, these three circuits all agree with each other and so there's nothing to appeal.

The 7th Circuit in Moore v. Madigan ruled exactly opposite of the 3rd Circuit that "Justified Need" was acceptable - Illinois/Chicago have wisely decided not to appeal this ruling to the USSC.

HOWEVER, the 9th Circuit just recently weighed in on the issue in Peruta v County of San Diego, and California AG Kamala Harris has already appealed the decision seeking an en banc ruling of the 9th Circuit. I don't anticipate that they're going to obviate the decision already reached...and they're simply going to decline. If so, Harris has already stated that CA will appeal to the USSC.......and the decision in Peruta goes out of it's way to pick a fight with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuit's decisions....

[gejohnston]

11. hate to break it to you but:

.. what may issue does, is PREVENT most of those people who shouldn't be carrying concealed guns everywhere they want, from doing so.

No it doesn't. See LA County, CA, where Sean Penn got a CCW even though he would not be allowed one in any shall issue state. NY and CA have no actual requirements such as training.

For yes pilgrims, there ARE lots of people in the USA who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, even gunnuts have told me this over the years, & they weren't speaking only of criminals.

Statistically, almost all of them are functionaries of the State with badges.

.. what may issue does, is allow people sitting in restaurants or in public, to notify management or call authority if they see someone with a pistol under his armpit or in his jacket.

no it doesn't/

.. as far as 'only the wealthy & privileged class' are able to get ccw permits, another ruse, another 2ndA mythological canard, for all one needs do is demonstrate bona fide need & one can get a ccw permit & perhaps pay a fee which would be approx that of a shall issue permit; don't you even understand the background of may issue rules? You shouldn't be spreading these ugly lies about, people might think you an nra backed gunnut.

On paper, but that isn't the way it really works. One only has to look at the CCW list for NYC, all one percenters, including members of the band Areosmith who got a short cut because the police sgt who made the decision is a fan. Then there is the proven facts of Orange County, California, where the Sheriff gave them out to campaign contributers. LA County has the same problem with racial discrimination on the side.

[blueridge3210]

12. Awww, you done destroyed his word salad with facts.

How rude!

[blueridge3210]

16. Boot Polisher? Is that really the best you can do?

Perhaps you should go back to GCRA where you can pontificate to your heart's content without the annoyance of anyone disagreeing with you.

[gejohnston]

17. how naive

Yes it is the way it really works, for unwealthy & unprivileged classes' can indeed get ccw permits;

No they don't, not in NYC or LA County. NYC's list is public record. None of the holders are part of the 99 percent.

Your rebuttal is again not a refutation of what I wrote, just a subjective tapdance to post up any sort of counter to the truth of what I'd written, that average people can & do obtain may issue permits, by demonstrating need.

I'm tap dancing nothing. "Demonstrating need" does not have a legal definition, that means it is what the issuing authority thinks it is. If the authority simply doesn't want to, they don't have to. If they want to hand them out to everyone who walks through the door, they can. Some counties in NY and CA do just that. When it comes to Sean Penn, you left out a very important point: LA County gave him a CCW when he was a prohibited person under federal law to possess any firearm. He got it through legalized bribery, which is SOP in LA and Orange Counties, and NYC. In LA County it is called deputizing them as part of the "executive reserve".

[jimmy the one]

20. city county state country

prev jto: Yes it is the way it really works, for unwealthy & unprivileged classes' can indeed get ccw permits;

johnston: No they don't, not in NYC or LA County. NYC's list is public record. None of the holders are part of the 99 percent.

Pfft, why argue with you, you tapdance upon tapdance; even then, you spun onto a tangential redherring from what I responded to jenoch about in new jersey, which was:

jenoch: What this topic appears to be is that only the wealthy and privileged class are able to get permits to carry in New Jersey (and New York too).

So even were I to concede your points (which I don't, not without scrutiny), you contend new York city & LA county have loopholes in their may issue ccw permitting. Well jenoch wrote about new jersey the state & new York the state. Which makes your argument a weak smoke screen.

Johnston: "Demonstrating need" does not have a legal definition, that means it is what the issuing authority thinks it is. If the authority simply doesn't want to, they don't have to. If they want to hand them out to everyone who walks through the door, they can.

Again with the superfluous double double talk talk; Check may issue states & residents therein with ccw permits - they exist, they are far less than shall issue rates, & people generally have to 'demonstrate need' to get them, despite your protestations. If there are loopholes, I think I know who we can blame there.

[gejohnston]

22. you ignore reality

Orange and LA counties are documented cases of courrpution. California does not have any objective standards. Half of the California counties are defacto shall issue. It is hardly a red herring, it is proof of economic and social discrimination. LA does disproportionality fewer issued to people of color, which proves ethnic and racial discrimination on the part of LA County.

Again with the superfluous double double talk talk; Check may issue states & residents therein with ccw permits - they exist, they are far less than shall issue rates, & people generally have to 'demonstrate need' to get them, despite your protestations. If there are loopholes, I think I know who we can blame there.

Not a valid point, nor did you disprove anything I said. All you did you is dishonestly use the words "tap dance" and "double talk" explaining why. That shows me that you know I'm right and not intellectually honest to admit it. The fact is, even if you do have a "demonstrable need" you do not get them if you are working to middle class, poor.

So even were I to concede your points (which I don't, not without scrutiny), you contend new York city & LA county have loopholes in their may issue ccw permitting. Well jenoch wrote about new jersey the state & new York the state. Which makes your argument a weak smoke screen.

Not at all, and you are obviously ignorant of the laws, otherwise you would not whine "smokescreen" with no evidence. New York and California issue by county, each county does what it wants. Most NY counties are defacto shall issue, and about half of California's counties are. NY does not have any standards at all, which is why the ATF and FBI will not allow NY to use their permits in lieu of a NICS check.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Happy opinion day

Have a side of irony with that salad.

you apparently don't know what a 'fact' is, since a response of 'no it doesn't' isn't really a fact, it's opinion;

And from a few paragraphs above:

jto: Yes it does.

[jimmy the one]

21. ooc discnt

prev jto: you apparently don't know what a 'fact' is, since a response of 'no it doesn't' isn't really a fact, it's opinion;
discntn: And from a few paragraphs above:
jto: Yes it does.

You take it out of context, dear, for in context I was giving johnston tit for tat:

prev jto:.. what may issue does, is allow people sitting in restaurants or in public, to notify management or call authority if they see someone with a pistol under his armpit or in his jacket.
Johnston: no it doesn't/
jimmy : Yes it does.

[gejohnston]

23. and how does shall issue prevent it?

It doesn't.

If someone does call the cops for a noncrime, what's your point? Should we be encouraging irrational fear based on what someone is wearing instead of behavior? No. In terms of rationality, it is the same as freaking out over young person in a hoodie.

[SQUEE]

14. With a simple sentence, you have just told us all how much your opinion on ConLaw is worth

"I wish I could find out how this was 'rejected', that is, was there a SC vote? or did cj Roberts decide it himself? what's the procedure anyone know? " i kept the others to keep context..

I admit, I am not a lawyer, never played one on TV, and therefore try to limit my self to adressing the tech side of the grabbers arguments, (luckily they are as informed on how guns work as my Oma is on the workings of the Internet...)

This just re-enforces my belief that so many argue just to argue, and have no real belief in the shit they spout.

[ileus]

19. Anyone who values life has justifiable need.

Pretty simple...