New Jersey flag gun revolver
Previous Post
Next Post

…New Jersey Senate President Nicholas Scutari (D–Linden) and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D‒Woodbridge Township) have unveiled legislation that closely resembles the [New York] law that [U.S. District Judge Glenn T.] Suddaby deemed constitutionally dubious. Like New York’s law, their bill would impose a subjective standard for carry permits and ban guns from myriad places where people might want to carry them for self-protection.

To obtain a carry permit, an applicant would have to persuade the police that he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Toward that end, he would have to undergo an interview and submit any information that local or state police officials deemed relevant, including “publicly available statements posted or published online by the applicant.”

Suddaby explicitly rejected both of those requirements in New York. And while the threat assessment that Scutari and Coughlin imagine may not be quite as open-ended as New York’s “good moral character” test, it likewise gives licensing authorities wide discretion to reject applications based on subjective judgments, including inferences from opinions an applicant has expressed.

Scutari and Coughlin’s list of gun-free locations is even longer than New York’s, and it includes many restrictions that Suddaby thought the state had failed to justify. In addition to banning guns in specified places, the bill would prohibit them on private property, including homes and businesses, unless the owner expressly allows them and posts a sign to that effect—another rule that Suddaby rejected.

These regulations, Democrats bragged, will make New Jersey “the toughest in the nation when it comes to concealed-carry laws.” Coughlin said “we’re doing this because we know gun safety does not conflict with safe gun ownership.”

— Jacob Sullum in New Jersey Joins New York in Defying the SCOTUS Decision Upholding the Right To Bear Arms

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This is simply the latest example which demonstrates that evil people (New Jersey politicians in this particular case) will never grow weary of–in pursuit of their selfish desires–attempting to use, abuse, exploit, and consume other people.

    Sadly, this should not come as any surprise. History is complete with examples of societies/cultures who willfully killed their own children in human sacrifice practices. When mankind is willing to kill their own children, everything is on the table. Prepare accordingly.

    • When they ask how many children need to die before we accept common sense gun control it is not a plea to our better nature it is a negotiation seeking quantity for the transaction.

    • “History is complete with examples..”

      The phrase is actually “History is replete (filled with an abundance of)…”

      Sorry, lol. I had to. But otherwise, your point is well taken and spot on.

      • A gun writer from the days of yore used that word endlessly, and it made his writing seem more like bragging about his Zeiss scopes and whatnot. Nevertheless, you are correct that it is the better word for this context.

  2. Only one thing worse than a democRat and that’s a jackazz gun owner who does not vote on November 8, 2022.

  3. I hope the taxpayers are happy with this.
    It’s like being forced under threat of imprisonment to give money to a panhandling crack head when you know all he’s going to do with it is buy more crack.

    • “I hope the taxpayers are happy with this.”

      They’ve been happy with Dimwitocrat rule for how long? Why would they change course now?

  4. This is virtue signaling and tribal warfare. NJ residents aren’t demanding solutions to actual problems.

    • Not quite, NY and NJ residents are demanding real solutions to real problems and that …… exactly the problem especially in NY we are broke (living off of covid bailouts) and generally do not have the budget to actually improve anything with current expenditures (not sure on NJ situation but would imagine it is similar). These are cheap “fixes” that may get some virtue signaling points and campaign contributions that will not overly impact the budget to fight in court as opposed to fixing infrastructure or actually locking up criminals or taking a hard look at our education system re waste/ineffectiveness. This is a temporary appeasement of longer term issues.

  5. These liberal state legislatures are like a bunch of spoiled rotten kids who think they know better than their elders (the founders and the authors of the Constitution of the United States of America.) Just like spoiled children, the courts will punish them for breaking the rules.

    • “We the People” is the problem the liberal federal, state and local politicians have and the problem is propagated by these liberal politicians because they have no respect for or care about the well being of “We the People”. Plain and simple. “We the People” are simply a means to an end for them with the end being their ticket to remain in office. Otherwise, “We the People” are of no/little value to the liberal politicians including RINOs.

  6. “we’re doing this because we know gun safety does not conflict with safe gun ownership.”
    Quite the oxymoron from this idiot who obviously doesn’t respect legitimate gun owners, the 2A, or the peoples’ right to self-defense. Have to ask him if he thinks the criminals will obey the law…

  7. May issue carry is a strong hold for racism and corruption. That says nothing of the idea that defaults to leaving it to the state which rights a person may or may not have is a horrid idea at face value. It’s why we have a judiciary involved when a person has their rights deprived.

  8. Sometimes members of the DEMONcRAT Party haven’t used the brain that God gave them. the anti-Gun Radicals are bound and determined to make fools of themselves after the Bruen decision.

  9. Imagine if any other Constitutional right — such as the right to vote — were subjected to this same restriction:
    Before being allowed to vote, every citizen will “have to undergo an interview and submit any information that local or state police officials deemed relevant, including ‘publicly available statements posted or published online by the applicant.'”
    If the state did that for voting rights, there would be a revolution!
    Yet somehow politicians think they can get away with it for gun rights.

  10. Ya know in Chiraq & ILLannoy the dims(& some republitard rino’s) fought shall issue CC tooth n nail. And lost. Joyzee is by any measure more corrupt. Slap the chit out a them…

  11. This is anti-gun the strategy …

    step 1: enact anti-gun laws that are unconstitutional.
    step 2: pro-gun takes it to lower federal court and unconstitutional laws get struck down
    step 3: Wash-rinse-repeat for each anti-gun state and jurisdiction.

    The goal, bleed the pro-gun side of money and resources by over whelming them with numerous lawsuits that are forced to address only (overall) small portions – so they will eventually not be able to continue. The anti-gun knows that the lower district courts rulings don’t have national impact and are narrowly focused so until these (or some) reach the SCOTUS and are struck down there the anti-gun has plenty of time to continue this game and also I might mention at tax payer expense backing the anti-gun finances with donations or pro-bono (which still has to be paid for in some way by the pro-gun law firm) backing the pro-gun finances.

  12. Pass unconstitutional gun laws, they go to court, where most courts strike them down (or SCOTUS), leading to precedent, then try to pass another law, only to get struck down by the previous precedent.
    Is that not the definition of insanity: Repeating the same action expecting a different result?

    Keep this up, and they will paint themselves into a corner.

    • “Is that not the definition of insanity: Repeating the same action expecting a different result?”

      There are limits to any maxim. Rules for radicals endorses doubling-down on losing actions; eventually the opposition will tire of the conflict. And it does work.

    • I thought the Ninth circuit had painted itself into a corner when it declared that there was no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. We all assumed that that meant the only way to constitutionally “bear” arms would necessarily be a right to open carry. BUT NO! Instead of coming to the obvious conclusion, the Ninth declared that there was no right to bear arms anywhere but on one’s own property.Although that decision has now been overturned by Bruen, it just shows the extent to which some courts will go to deny anyone a right to carry firearms in public.

  13. Its just another example of a State giving the finger to the Supreme Court. They know it might be challenged in court but this can take years and then they will just modify the law a bit and go through the legal challenges all over again. They will drag in on for years and even decades.

Comments are closed.