Monday, March 5, 2012

- MD Ruling Puts NJ Gun Laws At Risk



Here's some good news. The principle that a citizen must have a "good reason" to carry a gun outside their home has been found unconstitutional by a federal Judge in Maryland. This puts NJ's policy of never issuing a concealed carry permit to a non Law enforcement officer at great risk.

In essence, NJ's law says the same thing that Maryland's does except it goes one step further. It says that whatever reason you think you have, it's not a valid reason to carry a gun unless the Judge says it is. This has given NJ judges the power to institute the "procedural ban" that's been in place for the better part of 20 years.

But with this ruling it looks like the cracks in that foundation are finally weakening.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” he wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”


Good point - and one I've been advocating for years. Now let's see what happens in NJ.

8 comments:

chess said...

dear God say it aint so.. a judge actually enforcing the constitution????? arent they suppose to be rewriting that so we are all better robots?.. this judge wont get invited to the good parties nomo..

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

This will go to the Supreme court at some point. The outcome will depend on who gets appointed before then. Another Obama appointee or two and the government will have the right to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the nation.

chess said...

unfortunately agree. but when they visit my 10 acres they better have somethin that can shoot from 400 yards and be wearing kevlar.

frithguild said...

I thought you like the DB-9?

Tom said...

I do. It's just not as photogenic as the Beretta.

Tom said...

Frithguild, do you by any chance know the precise language in the NJ law that requires an 'urgent need' or whatever for a concealed carry permit? I tried to look it up but I wasn't able to find the actual law, only a gazillion paraphrasings. Thx

frithguild said...

"No application shall be approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent unless the applicant demonstrates that he is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in 2C:58-3c., that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun."

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4

frithguild said...

At the time of the reenactment of the gun-licensing provisions as part of the Code of Criminal Justice of 1979, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-1 to -11, the most relevant definition of “justifiable need” was set forth in Siccardi v. State, 59 N.J. 545, 284 A.2d 533 (1971). In that case, Justice Jacobs reviewed the history of our gun-control laws in the context of an application by the night manager of a theater in Plainfield to carry a gun. The manager was required to carry money in the late evening hours from the theater to a nearby bank. In support of his application, he recited numerous incidents involving beatings and robberies in the area of the theater, and claimed that his life had been threatened by persons confronting him in the theater and on the street. The Chief of Police denied the manager's application for a permit. That was followed, after a hearing, by the County Court's denial of the application as well. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the threats recited by the applicant were not sufficiently concrete to warrant the issuance of a permit. In concluding that “determinations of need be limited to police officers and security guards, small businesses in high crime areas, and others with a special need for self-protection,” *571 id. at 552, 284 A.2d 533 (quoting Final Report,
**152 National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence 181 (1969)

Under the Siccardi rule there must be “an urgent necessity * * * for self-protection.” 59 N.J. at 557, 284 A.2d 533. The requirement is of specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means. Ibid.; Reilly v. State, 59 N.J. 559, 562, 284 A.2d 541 (1971); In re Application of X, 59 N.J. 533, 534-35, 284 A.2d 530 (1971). Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice. Siccardi, supra, 59 N.J. at 557-58, 284 A.2d 533.



In re Preis 118 N.J. 564, 571, 573 A.2d 148, 152 (N.J.,1990)