Jump to content
IGNORED

19 states join legal fight against New Jersey's concealed weapons law


BowhunterNJ

Recommended Posts

 

conceal_carry2.jpg

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Wyoming is leading a coalition of 19 states asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them submit a brief supporting a New Jersey man's challenge to that state's concealed weapons law.

 

The Wyoming Attorney General's Office, acting as lawyer for Wyoming and the other states, on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to grant a hearing to John M. Drake and others who are challenging a recent appeals court ruling.

 

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last summer ruled against Drake's challenge to a provision in New Jersey law that says people seeking permits to carry a concealed firearm must prove to police that they have a justifiable need.

 

The brief from Wyoming Attorney General's Office says that Wyoming and the other states are concerned that if the appeals court ruling stands, it could threaten their less-restrictive concealed carry laws.

 

"This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home," Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said Wednesday. "So, I felt it was necessary to have the attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.

 

"If the current decision stands, states providing greater protections than New Jersey under the Second Amendment may be pre-empted by future federal action," said Mead, a Republican.

 

Wyoming is among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Although Wyoming still issues concealed carry permits to its citizens, the state in 2011 changed its laws to allow concealed carry without a permit.

 

Mead and other statewide officials this month approved $13 million in grants to help a Colorado producer of ammunition magazines for guns move its manufacturing operations to Wyoming. Magpul Industries of Erie, Colo., pledged to move out of Colorado after lawmakers in that state enacted gun control measures last year.

 

The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, reported Wednesday that Drake, of Fredon, N.J., is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the paper he sometimes carries large amounts of cash.

 

"It seems unreasonable to me to have to wait until you're beaten up or shot at to get a permit," Drake said told the newspaper.

 

The National Rifle Association also is supporting Drake's legal challenge.

 

The Star-Ledger quoted Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, saying, "Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves beyond their front doorstep."

 

The other states joining in the effort are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/1-states-join-legal-fight-against-new-jersey-concealed-weapons-law/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case has tremendous implications.  With the states joining in and opining that NJ's actions are a potential risk to their own laws is fascinating.  It also puts NJ behind the 8-ball.  However, it's not all bright and shiny.  NJ could clarify "justifiable need" more specifically, and that might be all that needs to be done.  Remember, the guy suing handles cash, so he is very close to being like a Brinks employee.  If he were Joe Citizen who wanted a CCP, I don't think he would have as strong a case.  But on the other hand, NJ has a long history of outright denying people CCPs, and that alone is damning enough.  There is enough evidence that NJ's implementation of their CCP and enforcement of it is gun control.

 

I'm hoping for the best but not keeping my hopes up.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/27/surge-in-concealed-weapon-permits-follows-california-court-second-amendment/

 

This is a good sign for folks in NJ. It's nearly the same reasoning behind NJ's "justifiable need" clause.

 

It's going to suck for Sweeney and his ilk as the SCOTUS shoots down NJ's absurd laws.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NJ's legislators will do everything in their power to prevent it by dragging their heels and whatever delay tactics they can come up with.  However, case law right now isn't going their way, and there's a very good chance they'll be forced to change some laws.  While I remain optimistic that it will go in favor of the law-abiding citizen, I always remind myself that this is NJ, and mob in Trenton hates its citizens.  But I am hoping for the best.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, The Supreme court doesnt give a crap about case law.. The constitution does not give us citizens the right to carry concealed weapons, period.. But i think it DOES give us a right to carry them.. whether or not the Justices will make a narrow ruling and uphold the concealed carry laws or broaden the scope of the law suit and declare States have to choose between open or concealed is anybodies guess...

 

Personally, i like the open carry idea better... I like to see what i might potentially be up against in a gun fight..Knowledge is power. :cupcoffee:

 

 

 

Yours truly,

 

                  Johnny Cochran

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...