US Judge Rejects Challenge to NJ Firearm Carry Restrictions
The suit was brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a Wall, New Jersey, resident who was denied a permit to carry a handgun because he could not demonstrate a justifiable need.
By Charles Toutant | May 22, 2018 at 04:01 PM
Credit: iStockphoto.com
A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, has turned back a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s law requiring the showing of a “justifiable need” for anyone who wants to carry firearms in public.
The suit was brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a Wall, New Jersey, resident who was denied a permit to carry a handgun because he could not demonstrate a justifiable need.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti granted a motion to dismiss the challenge.
The decision highlights a circuit split over whether a state may place the burden on an applicant to prove need in order to secure a carry permit.
Martinotti said he had no authority to grant the plaintiffs’ request to declare the “justifiable need” requirement unconstitutional, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had upheld the constitutionality of that requirement in New Jersey’s gun permit laws in its 2013 decision, Drake v. Filko. In that case, the appeals court held that the “justifiable need” requirement for persons seeking to carry a handgun in public was “presumptively lawful” and did not infringe on the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs argued that Drake was wrongly decided and urged the court to follow Wrenn v. District of Columbia, a 2017 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that case, a special-need requirement for a permit to carry a firearm in public, similar to New Jersey’s, was overturned.
But Wrenn is “neither binding nor precedential to this Court and cannot serve to overturn Third Circuit precedent,” Martinotti wrote. The District Court “does not have the authority or power to grant such a request and, therefore, deems this complaint meritless on its face.”
The individual plaintiff in the case, Thomas Rogers, has an automatic teller machine business, which requires him to travel to various locations carrying large amounts of cash. His application to carry a weapon was denied by his town’s police chief, who concluded that he failed to establish specific threats that put him in special and unavoidable danger. Superior Court Judge Joseph Oxley affirmed that ruling on Jan. 2.
Oxley said Rogers failed to demonstrate he was subject to the level of specific attacks or threats required under statute to get permission to carry a handgun. He only cited general circumstances when he had to leave his machines due to “suspicious activities taking place nearby.”
The suit said New Jersey’s courts have interpreted the justifiable-need requirement to determine that generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice to establish a justifiable need. As a result, typical New Jersey residents who cannot demonstrate their life is in danger, as evidenced by serious threats or previous attacks, are effectively subject to a ban on carrying guns outside the home, the suit asserts.
The other plaintiff, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, says on its website that it is “the official New Jersey affiliate of” the National Rifle Association. The ANJRPC says the “incredible support and guidance” of the NRA “made this new lawsuit possible,” and goes on to say that the “right to carry’s time is coming in the Garden State.”
Named as defendants in the case were New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal; Patrick Callahan, acting superintendent of the New Jersey State Police; Kenneth Brown Jr., chief of the Wall Township Police Department, and Superior Court Judges Joseph Oxley and N. Peter Conforti.
Martinotti cited three failed legal efforts aimed at overturning Drake. As a trial judge he lacked discretion to disregard such controlling precedent, he wrote.
Daniel Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki in Ridgewood, New Jersey, represented the plaintiff along with lawyers from Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. Schmutter said in an e-mail that “We are confident that the United States Supreme Court will vindicate the right to carry a firearm outside of the home as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”
Schmutter previously stated that he was hopeful that the Rogers case could reach the Supreme Court, in light of the conflict between the D.C. Circuit ruling in Wrenn, and the Third Circuit ruling in Drake. He said that courts in New Jersey and other states have interpreted the “justifiable need” standard vary narrowly, and permits are granted very rarely under that standard.
Deputy Attorney General Bryan Edward Lucas represented the state defendants. A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, Lee Moore, said in a statement, “We agree with the court’s decision. New Jersey’s law regulating the public carrying of firearms is plainly constitutional. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has already held, our law is valid because it reflects a longstanding approach to promoting public safety.”
SHARE ON FACEBOOK
