Third Circuit: May Issue NJ A-OK

New Jersey commemorate coin (courtesy en.academic.ru)

“A mandate that residents demonstrate an ‘urgent necessity for self-protection’ to get authorization to publicly carry a handgun doesn’t run afoul of U.S. constitutional protections of the right to bear firearms, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled yesterday.” The bloomberg.com report doesn’t gloat—because it doesn’t have to. “The justifiable need standard is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality,” the panel wrote. (As was slavery.) In other words, “The appellate judges upheld that ruling, finding the New Jersey permit law was a ‘presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation and therefore does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.” The good news: “In 1981, just three states — Maine, Washington and Vermont — let residents carry weapons in public without giving a reason. Today, about 40 states do.” Let? Oy.

comments

  1. avatar Pascal says:

    I believe it is more complicated than that.

    Here is a definition of “Presumption of Constitutionality”
    http://www.lawnotes.in/Presumption_of_Constitutionality

    Meaning, it has not been found to be unconstitutional. So, unless this goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rules otherwise, they are saying it is ok because it is the way it has been for a long time.

    it is going to come down to SCOTUS defining what “shall not be infringed” means. And we may not like the answer.

    Given the court I did not expect a better result. I have to read the full ruling,

    1. avatar Chris says:

      In other words it is going to depend on campaign contributions. The non celebrities in NYC with carry licenses are major political donors.

  2. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    First, Christie calls libertarianism a “very dangerous thought” and now this… NJ officially hates freedom (not exactly news, I know) and is begging people to pack up and leave.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      No. Christie called Libertarian Foreign Policy dangerous. The idea that we can just ignore the problems of the world is what got us WWII. The NJ Democrats hate freedom, the Republicans in the Legislature opposed the bills now sitting on the Gov’s desk.

      1. avatar Julian says:

        That is such a worn out crock of ****. It was Wilson’s meddling in the “peace” treaties after WWI that led to WWII. I suggest the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”.

        1. avatar DBeans says:

          it was us jumping in a war that had jack to do with us in ww1, that had no EVIL hitlers or stalins just your average murderous war mongering national leaders. if you got time to read a book that challenges your view, read churchill, hitler and the unnecessary war by Pat Buchanan. this book was the first to crack the old progressive run school dogma that was pounded in my head. hopefully it does the same for you.

        2. avatar PPGMD says:

          What type of revisionist BS is that? Wilson ideas for the treaty were rejected, the Treaty of Versailles was Britain’s and France’s way of punishing Germany, which set them on the path to WWII. Would Wilson’s 14 point plan have prevented WWII? Who knows, but to claim that the Treaty of Versailles is his baby is ignoring the fact that he didn’t want a peace treaty that would punish Germany and ultimately bring about the conditions which allowed Hilter to rise to power.

          Granted there is some argument that if America had stayed out of WWI there would’ve have been a decisive victory for either side in the war and the peace treaty would’ve been negotiated with Germany having more power to have a say in the terms. But you didn’t write that did you?

      2. avatar Julian says:

        Also, he wasn’t talking about FP, he was talking about NSA mass spying on Americans in the name of “Protecting Us From Terrorism”.

  3. avatar warriorshonor says:

    I see a conflict between the lower courts and a perfect case for the SCOTUS….

    1. avatar superiorposture says:

      What conflict? NJ2AF, Evan Nappen, et al have been SCREAMING about this for years to anyone who will listen. As it turns out, in the courts… no one is listening. I’m sure the only reason this court agreed to even hear the case was because they would (very swiftly) rule the exact same as all the other courts have and thus create NO conflict between the courts, which would make the SCOTUS less likely to hear it. Hard to prove, but it feels very strongly like a calculated political move to further solidify the state’s (insane) position against constitutional conformity.

      The original lawsuit against the state included such people as a former kidnapping victim and night-shift tow truck driver in the murder capital of the USA (Camden). They were denied behind the excuse of lack of a “justifiable need”. The intent was to show that the term is a) nebulous in definition, b) insanely subjective, and c) for all PRACTICAL purposes, turns NJ into a “no issue” state. EVERY court up the line, however, has upheld that decision.

  4. avatar Marky says:

    I fcking loathe my state. The sad running joke here is that you need to prove you’ve already been killed before they will even consider it. I can only think of 2 people I have ever met in person that have NJ carry permits. Ugh.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      And I’m sure they were both retired LEOs

    2. avatar Danger Zone says:

      I read through the ruling…it amazes me that the court could go and not concede a single point. The only justification that the court utilizes is that the general public, if allowed to concealed carry, will probably go around accidentally shooting themselves or others.

      They imply that by forcing the public to show a “justifiable need” that it will keep unnecessary handguns off the street. They also cite a study that says that CCW doesn’t actually keep people any safer than if they were unarmed.

      The only positive here is that it definitely sets up a SCOTUS case that would provide precedent for the entire country (hopefully that’s a good thing). In conclusion, eff this state…

      1. avatar Mediocrates says:

        Oh yeah… It’s that imaginary social rights thing…. I have always felt that exercising my Constitutional rights are unnecessary.

      2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

        Man, I would LOVE it if New Jersey’s bass ackwards policy towards CCW was the case that blew away “may issue” in the SCOTUS. That would be sweet irony for the dictators politicians in this state.

        Also, since when does “longstanding” have any legal muscle. As others mentioned, slavery was practiced for a long time…

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          This “long standing” language has its genesis in Heller, where Scalia wrote that nothing in its decision should be read as disapproving longstanding limitations on the right such as insanity and felony–limitations that were presumptively valid. Concealed carry falls within this realm, as such laws date back two hundred years (but for a very different reason). The twist in this case, as it is in California, is that the old cases allowing a ban on concealed carry affirmed constitutionality as long as the ability to carry openly remained–which is pretty much now against the law for the average citizen in any urban area of these states.

  5. avatar Mediocrates says:

    We, the People are the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional. When you have legions of servants of the One telling us that the meaning of the second amendment changes with the political winds, how can you ever expect them to defend the the rest of the Constitution. Without a red line, there are no consequences.

  6. avatar Mark N. says:

    And then there is the other side. This was not a unanimous opinion, and the dissent is marvelous. I haven’t made it through the majority opinion yet–the dissent is much shorter. Tears them up one side and down the other. The only argument it did not discuss is that a “may issue” system based on “justifiable need” is contrary to the existence of a natural and fundamental right, as opposed to a mere privilege or license. According to the express language of the Second Amendment, all persons have a right to keep and bear arms. This individual right cannot be reconciled with a conclusion that only some citizens–those who have a “special” and demonstrable immediate need to bear arms– can exercise the privilege, subject to the discretionary determination of a public official. Further, requiring proof of an immediate need is pretty silly anyway–because there is no way in all creation that a person desiring a CCW, even assuming the special justification is shown, can fulfill the training and testing requirements of the licensing law and pass the required background check in anything less than a period measured n months.

    1. avatar Mediocretes says:

      Thanks for that…

    2. avatar Fionn MacCumhail says:

      I agree, the dissent was excellent, and hopefully improves the chances of SCOTUS picking up the case. The majority had to bend the law over backward to get the result they desired. The opinion was written by a 93 year old judge – born in 1919 and appointed by LBI! There is a bit of irony here when the “long standing regulations” discussed were almost all put in place during the judge’s own lifetime.

  7. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Don’t forget 5 states now require no permit for concealed carry.

    This pretty well illustrates the movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc2.gif

  8. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    The second amendment is the only “justifiable reason” anyone needs & anyone who thinks otherwise is a Traitor!

    All of these justices, asside from the dissent, should be tarred & feathered & ran out of town. That would teach then to make the correct rulings by virtue of righteous indignation.

    34 state 2/3rd majority is, again, the only reasonable answer to this unconstitutional behavior.

  9. avatar Accur81 says:

    I could be convinced to support “may issue”‘ if it meant that ordinary respnsinle people could get concealed carry, and that every politician who votes against conceled carry would be denied CCW / CHL permits and denied LEO protection.

  10. avatar Jay W. says:

    From a MAWG, if we applied this same logic to slavery, it would still be the “norm” of the land!

  11. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    I’m being a bit lazy, but can someone outline why this doesn’t conflict with the order that forced concealed carry on Illinois? If Illinois had the option of going with a may-issue law, I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t do it.

    Regardless, a few years ago I would have been very enthusiastic about this going to the SCOTUS, but that was before Chief Justice Roberts had proven unreliable (in his compliance with constitutional law).

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      I guess they can try to argue that Illinois had a total prohibition, which was unconstitutional, but a may issue law would be constitutional. The problem is that in places like New Jersey, Hawaii, etc, the law may be technically may issue, but is really very close to no issue in practice. There are also States where a may issue law is in practice closer to shall issue. The courts don’t seem to care to dig into the actual outcome as opposed to what the law says in theory, and this particular court would have probably upheld the constitutionality of a no issue law anyway.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Illinois is an interesting example, in that (from what I’ve read) the rest of the state forced the Governor to override the diktat of the Chicago Rahm machine. A weirder situation exists in DC, which the SCOTUS forced to allow concealed carry, and who promptly forced the remaining FFL holders out of business. There’s one now, but the application process is so onerous that one needs to be a Congresscritter or VERY connected to get a CCW. Watch Chicago for more gyrations.

  12. ハワイ louis vuitton

  13. louis vuitton e store,超激安

  14. 正規代理店,品質保証!

  15. 財布 louis vuitton 新作

  16. avatar erikjoe2015 says:

    women’s vampire costume
    Some people have even suggested that black lingerie makes the wearer feel powerful and dominant. this may explain why some high powered business women and corporate high flyers power dress. A black bra and matching lingerie is also considered an indication of simmering passion in the wearer.
    skull lace stockings
    http://www.waltmarts.com

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email