The National Rifle Association is supporting a Sussex County man's lawsuit seeking a permit to carry his handgun outside of his house, the organization announced this week.
The national lobbying group said it was backing John Drake’s lawsuit with a forthcoming amicus brief, in support of Second-Amendment rights in New Jersey, the organization said. Drake, and other plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit, petitioned last month to have their case heard in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselve beyond their front doorstep,” said Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Drake, of Fredon, is a business owner who owns and services ATMs – and who carries large amounts of cash, he said in an interview this morning. The suit challenges New Jersey law requiring "justifiable need" to acquire concealed-carry permits, he said.
The problem is not with the "may issue" system which requires the applicant to present "justifiable need," but rather with the definition of "justifiable need."
In my opinion, Mr. Drake qualifies. I don't see that it's necessary to dismantle the entire system in order to accommodate cases like this. Of course that's what the pro-gun folks want, but with a minor tweak, the New Jersey system can be sufficiently improved.
9th Circuit just ruled in a case like this. Said that such requirements are unconstitutional limitations. Yes, it's not the final word, but it's interesting that even the 9th disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I just posted that.
DeleteSince you probably only get your news from other pro-gun fanatics, you might have missed the fact that the 9th's decision was in conflict with that of most other circuits.
Two against three counts as a fairly even split, especially since those two are California and Illinois--two of our most populous and bluest states.
DeleteTo keep and bare arms. The right to carry is protected.
Delete"In my opinion, Mr. Drake qualifies. I don't see that it's necessary to dismantle the entire system in order to accommodate cases like this. Of course that's what the pro-gun folks want, but with a minor tweak, the New Jersey system can be sufficiently improved."
ReplyDelete2/13/2014
"A three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on a 2009 lawsuit, ruled in a 2-1 decision that San Diego County's restrictions amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on citizens' Second Amendment rights to bear arms."
Why? Because the 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms does not vaporize into non existence when you leave your home. New Jersey has "disregarded" that right and purposely restricted it to "justifiable need"
Let me interpret that for you. > If the state decides to give you a permit, it will. <
It is like going to vote and the state saying your vote is not justifiable.
That is not how our Constitution was written and that is not how it works.
The 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms does not need justification. Even the courts have verified that.
Non everyone sees it that way.
DeleteThe problem with may-issue is that it is routinely abused, in every state where it is place. They wouldn't be getting sued if they were fair about it. You agreed yourself that this man should not have been denied, so how do you fix it?
ReplyDeleteThere should be a way to define more accurately what constitutes justifiable cause. I agree the problem is in some states the system has been abused. That doesn't mean we have to scrap the entire system.
DeleteYes, it does. When there's clear evidence of government abuse, we should dump the bad law and have equal enforcement--wasn't that the point of the Voting Rights Act? The same should apply to guns.
DeleteThen what you are talking about is shall-issue. If an applicant meets the defined criteria, the permit is granted. May-issue means they can say "no" to anybody they want.
Delete"Saying no to anyone they want" doesn't at all sound like what I said, does it?
DeleteI said we'd need to better define what's meant by "justifiable need."
Abuses in the system should be addressed like abuses in any other system. Not by abolishing the entire system like Greg says but by fixing it.
MikeB: ""Saying no to anyone they want" doesn't at all sound like what I said, does it?"
DeleteYes it does. That's what a may-issue system means. It means they may-not-issue if they want. The system allows them to do that. What you can't seem to get past is this idea to you that may-issue = tough, and shall-issue = lenient. It doesn't have to mean. There can be tight criteria for shall-issue and may-issue could be giving out permits willy-nilly if they feel like it.
A justifiable need is my desire to carry. Anything else is a violation of rights.
DeleteThere is absolutely a need to tear down an unjust and corrupt system that denies rights to just about everyone in New Jersey. With the recent ruling in California and the ruling a while ago in Illinois, this is going to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteWho in New Jersey has been denied their right to buy, or own a gun?
DeleteAnon, this case isn't about possession in the home, this is about the right to possess outside of the home.
DeleteTypes of firearms and magazines are banned, and ownership is restricted. But owning a gun is just one part of the total right. You're forgetting the right to carry.
DeleteI'm used to you guys ducking questions. I'll add this one to the list. I asked nothing about who can carry inside, or outside the home. The question is quite clear, it's your answers that are deceptive, as usual.
DeleteWe didn't duck any question. The question you asked was irrelevant. The point here was about carrying a gun outside the home, not about ownership.
DeleteIt's not irrelevant, you are the one who keeps falsely claiming people are being denied their right to own a gun, but I have asked many times to point out one person who has been denied, no response. So you are just lying, and ducking the question.
Delete"Who in New Jersey has been denied their right to buy, or own a gun?"
DeleteBrian Aitken.
Twice you accused people of ducking the question. Are you ducking the answer now?
DeletePoor persecuted Brian is not a good example of "Who in New Jersey has been denied their right to buy, or own a gun?"
DeleteHe's an example of someone who was busted for illegal possession of a gun.
His only crime was owning a gun. The state of New Jersey said he had no right to own a gun and threw him in prison. It's a perfect example.
DeleteI hate it when you persist like that. Why can't you admit when you're wrong? Is it an ego thing?
DeleteBeing denied a gun, which was the original question, "Who in New Jersey has been denied their right to buy, or own a gun?" is different from being arrested for illegal possession of one. Is that so difficult?
Actually, New Jersey has what many consider to be a de facto ban on carry permits, since you also have to get a judge to buy off on issuing a permit. This type of system is how the shall issue permit systems took off.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Illinois for a long period of time didn't have a carry permit system at all. When the courts required them to implement a permit system, they didn't go to a "may issue" system, their legislature decided to go right to a "shall issue" system.
As for the need of a minor tweak, if the court rules in favor of he plaintiff, then that tweak will happen. Just as it did in Illinois.
Going from may issue to shall issue is not what I call a minor tweak.
DeleteIt's a necessary one, no matter how significant.
DeleteNJ will abandon it's Imperial "justifiable need" requirement only when forced to by higher authority. They will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, since they have been able to disarm their subjects by the rulings of corrupt appointed judges who are only too willing to be lap dogs to the ruling elite. They will continue to assert that handguns afford no protection to those who wish to carry them, while surrounded by their own security guards armed with "high capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" they have deemed inappropriate and felonious for the populace.
ReplyDelete