By Sgt. Patrick Hayes
If you’re a New Jersey resident who wants to practice the “bear” part of the “keep and bear arms” protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, good luck. To obtain a concealed carry permit – itself an infringement on Americans’ gun rights – New Jersey citizens must show “justifiable need.” They have to convince the State of New Jersey that there’s a specific and credible threat against their person. A simple desire to protect your life, loved ones and your community from potential harm won’t cut it. And so some eight million Garden State residents are denied their natural, civil and Constitutional right to bear arms. On Friday . . .
We’ll learn whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the Drake case; where a New Jersey resident is fighting for his right to carry a firearm in public without proving “justifiable need.” On the other side, New Jersey justifies “justifiable need” as a “long standing precedent” – as if Constitutional rights have a sell-by date.
Lest we forget, slavery was a “long Standing Precedent.” As was not allowing women or blacks to vote. As was making it difficult for African-Americans to vote (the so-called literacy tests). Then the Supreme Court ruled that all laws supporting these ideas were unconstitutional. The States had to abandon the injustice.
The lower court decisions that upheld New Jersey’s “may issue” (as opposed to “shall issue”) permitting system, that brought the case to the Supreme Court’s consideration, once again reveal the court system’s fundamental prejudice against the supremacy of individual rights over elitism and prejudice. The courts rulings rest on the deeply offensive and wrong-minded principle that a Constitutional right can be set aside for the public good.
They can’t give up on gun control laws that have done nothing to stop violent crime because violent crime is not the point. The laws are designed to protect a class system that puts them at the top of the pile. A system where firearms are a privilege enjoyed by the privileged few, the police, who ultimately answer to them, the guardians of the court system,
I talk with cops from around the country. I get different takes on the issue of “may” vs. “shall” issue. Most law enforcement officers in the south and west see “may issue” laws for what they are: useless gun control trash. Laws that do nothing to stop violent criminals and everything make civilians defenseless and dependent on Big Brother for their protection.
Some police officers in the larger cities in the East -but not all by any means – say these laws “keep guns off the streets.” When I point out that there are plenty of guns and plenty of homicides in their ” gun controlled” cities, that in almost every case the criminal had no right to posses a firearm, that the law prevented them from obtaining a gun, they always use the same excuse: it would be worse without the laws.
These officers are brainwashed to disregard their common sense and refuse to acknowledge what they see every day on the street. And yet the concept is simple. If you have to prove a justifiable need before the State “lets” you have a gun, you’ll probably be dead or injured before that day arrives. That doesn’t make sense on any level – unless civilian disarmament is your real goal. Whether you know it or not.