I can't wait for NJ to fall.
It's hard to understand though how DC fell in October of 2017 and NJ continues with their unconstitutional "justifiable need".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't DC's "good reason" to carry based on NJ's "justifiable need"?
This is from when DC fell in 2017. It sounds EXACTLY like what is currently being argued in NJ no?
I'm no lawyer, but if DC's law was found to be unconstitutional and that law as based on the NJ forumla, how the heck is NJ's law still standing! I know, I know. Somebody had to file suit in NJ first. It's just frustrating waiting. I guess a few more weeks won't make a difference. It's inevitable that NJ's "justifiable need" requirement will fall. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
"In Tuesday’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, the majority declared that the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense is at “the core” of the Second Amendment’s right. The Amendment protects both a “right to keep” and a separate “right to bear” arms, and both of those are equally protected, the majority declared.
Struck down by the decision was a Washington, D.C., law that puts special restrictions on local residents’ chance to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Local law does not allow any open carrying of a gun in public.
For a concealed carry permit, a local resident must offer proof of “a good reason to fear injury,” which is spelled out as requiring “evidence of specific threats or previous attacks” indicating a “special danger” to that person’s life. The local law would also allow a license to be issued to a person whose job requires them to carry around cash or valuables. Living or working in a high-crime area, however, is not sufficient to get a license. (Other federal appeals courts have upheld similar laws requiring proof of a safety risk before one can get a license to have a gun outside the home.)
In striking down the local ordinance, the Circuit Court majority said it amounts to a flat ban on access to a carrying permit, because it would exclude almost any ordinary, law-abiding citizen without specific reason to fear for their safety – embracing nearly all of the city’s population. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2008, whatever else it means, will not permit what amounts to a categorical ban on exercising Second Amendment rights, the majority declared."
Link below to full article.