Let's play devil's advocate. What would be NJ's best defense against the SAF suit?

[Downr@nge 22]

What would be NJ's best defense against the SAF suit? Since its a facial challenge, all the state has to do is just prove one time that their rules are necessary. Could any of us think of any scenario where NJ's justifiable need is necessary?

 

I'm honestly drawing blanks here as I could not think of any scenario where justifiable need is necessary UNLESS there was some new law that allowed violent criminals and felons access to guns. Since law abiding citizens aren't criminals, that wouldn't apply to us. So that argument would be a fail. That's all I can think of right now. What about you guys?

[BigHayden 77]

How about, "Because Bryan Miller says so." Wasn't that their justification for OGAM? Or maybe they'll get some advice from the teachers' union and say, "But it's for the children!"

 

In all seriousness though, NJ firearms laws are all based on Burton v. Sills, which at this point is invalid under Heller/McDonald. Any defense they offer is ultimately going to trace back to that case and won't stand up to a challenge in Federal court (had the suit been filed in NJ court, the state wouldn't have to worry about a defense, since the court would throw it out without even hearing it). And if our larger than life governor truly does have aspirations that are beyond the NJ governor's mansion he better start showing some genuine conservative leanings, including loosening restrictions on gun rights in NJ. He's sorely mistaken if he thinks the NRA isn't watching this unfold along with the guv's presidential aspirations...

[mcbethr 42]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the State of New Jersey can argue that they are a special case because of their geography.

 

I'm not a law enforcement officer, but I think some assumptions about crime can be derived logically.

 

Basically, New Jersey is a big suburb of New York and Philadelphia. I would imagine that Route 295 and The New Jersey Turnpike are basically gigantic pipelines that feed narcotics into New York and Philadelphia. Camden, Trenton and Newark/Jersey City are ideal staging areas to efficiently package and distribute drugs before they are moved into New York and Philadelphia. You can reach Boston and points West from trains that connect from Trenton. Now that we have the River Line, you don't even need a car to move drugs from Camden to anywhere you want in the country. New Jersey is in the "perfect" place to distribute narcotics.

 

Now imagine if you let every one of those drugs mules or drug dealers carry a gun. All they would need is a clean record, have three references, pay the $100 fee, and just like that, you have a drug dealer carrying a legal weapon and there isn't a darn thing the police can do about it.

 

Now, I recognize that this argument is absurd. Anyone who is already committing one illegal act (carrying drugs) will not be concerned about committing a second illegal act (illegally carrying a gun). But I would imagine that the defense could raise the specter of having someone who is already committing an illegal act trying to obtain a legal carry permit. I can even give you an example.

 

I know a man who used to have a NJ Permit to carry back in the 1980's because he carried large sums of cash. He had a storefront business, but he also sold Cuban cigars on the side to friends and friends of friends. For those of you who are not cigar smokers, Cuban cigars are illegal under the 1917 "Trading With The Enemy Act" and have been since February of 1962. This man was caught, tried and convicted. He is now a convicted felon who can no longer own a firearm. But he had a permit to carry and he had that permit while he was committing illegal acts. In this case, the act may seem innocuous (the absurdity of the Cigar embargo is another story) but it was still a federal crime.

 

So that is one argument that could be raised.

 

I can think of one more argument - the current New Jersey carry permitting system works to prevent gun deaths.

 

Think of it this way: remember that old statistic about how a gun is more dangerous to the owner than to a criminal? If you want to get technical those anti-gun folks are absolutely right, it is impossible for a person who does not posses a gun to accidentally shoot himself with a gun. It is impossible for a person who does not own a gun to have his own gun used on himself. If the state restricts those who can legally carry a weapon, there will be fewer shootings (justifiably or otherwise) because logically, there will be fewer guns carried in general. Now if you want to talk about *violence*, well, that is a different story. You can do violence with just about any object, but if that object is not a gun, then you will not have a shooting death. It may be a death, but it won't be a shooting death. In that sense, the anti-gun people are absolutely right. New Jersey's system helps prevent shooting deaths.

 

The New Jersey carry permitting system has, in essence, put a chilling effect on gun sales. By reducing the reasons to own a gun (of which personal carry is only one), restricting places where you can take a gun (to the range/gunsmith) and increasing the barriers to own one (with FID/Permitting), you effectively decrease the pool of available guns. Remember every illegal handgun starts out as a legal handgun. If you have fewer guns available to the law-abiding, you are technically reducing the pool of guns available to those who do not abide by laws. New Jersey may be able to argue that their weapons restrictions are a reasonable curb of rights under the same logic that makes it illegal to use your First Amendment right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. From a Liberal's perspective (and yes I am a Liberal), it's hard to say the New Jersey is wrong. I've never been a victim of gun violence. I've never known anyone who has been mugged. If an area is generally unsafe, I just don't go there. Are the laws a pain? Yes. Do they work? Honestly, they just might. But this is coming from a Cherry Hill Jew. I don't have to live in Camden, Trenton or Newark so I can't even put my brain into one of those dangerous places. But this is the kind of thinking that clouds the minds of my friends when the topic of guns come up at barbecues and cocktail parties. I live in a place where safety is a way of life. I'd bet you that all of the New Jersey defense attorneys and judges live in some pretty nice areas as well.

 

Now that being said, let me stop the flamethrowers before you light them up. I may be a Liberal, but I am a Second Amendment Liberal. I don't personally desire to carry a gun, but I feel that should be a matter of personal choice, not one of government mandate. Do New Jersey's laws work? They just might. Are they unconstitutional? They just might be. But freedom isn't a Chinese Restaurant. You can't pick one amendment from Column A and a different amendment from Column B. It's all or nothing.

 

This whole carry issue comes down to one thing: Are we a United States with One Constitution, or a we a United States with a constitution that can be applied differently in different places? I know what I choose, and I know there could be consequences to that choice. But it is the choice that I make to live in a free society. The people of this state should have all of their rights, not just the rights that lawmakers think we should have: all.

 

-Bether

[vjf915 456]

One thing I want to point out that you posted. Every illegally owned gun starts out as a legally owned gun? Straw purchases and stealing are not the only ways that criminals can get their hands on guns. Guns get imported from other countries, just as drugs do.

 

And to say that strongly restricting guns will reduce the amount of shooting deaths is not really a valid statement. This has been said millions of times before across firearms boards. Taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens gives criminals the ability to be more active. Crime rates go DOWN when gun control goes DOWN. So to say that restricting guns altogether will reduce shooting deaths is wrong. If law abiding citizens are given the ability to protect themselves, violent crime rates will go down.

 

I am not directing this at you as if these were your opinions, so please dont take this post as a disagreement with you. I am posting this in a disagreement with your theoretical arguments that NJ might make if this case comes to trial.

[SpecialK 193]

Now that being said, let me stop the flamethrowers before you light them up. I may be a Liberal, but I am a Second Amendment Liberal. I don't personally desire to carry a gun, but I feel that should be a matter of personal choice, not one of government mandate. Do New Jersey's laws work? They just might. Are they unconstitutional? They just might be. But freedom isn't a Chinese Restaurant. You can't pick one amendment from Column A and a different amendment from Column B. It's all or nothing.

 

This whole carry issue comes down to one thing: Are we a United States with One Constitution, or a we a United States with a constitution that can be applied differently in different places? I know what I choose, and I know there could be consequences to that choice. But it is the choice that I make to live in a free society. The people of this state should have all of their rights, not just the rights that lawmakers think we should have: all.

 

-Bether

 

this made a tear come to my eye, I couldn't agree more with you. I hope you don't mind me quoting you in my sig. I just really like the part I put in bold.

[mikelets456 78]

Now imagine if you let every one of those drugs mules or drug dealers carry a gun. All they would need is a clean record, have three references, pay the $100 fee, and just like that, you have a drug dealer carrying a legal weapon and there isn't a darn thing the police can do about it.

 

 

 

This is the problem... criminals carry guns, criminals have guns and nothing will stop them from doing so. Not a silly Firearms ID system, Permit system or outlawing guns... criminals will ALWAYS get them and carry them... period. Remember, India has stringent anti-Gun laws yet the highest murder rate by guns. Also, 170,000,000 people have died in the last 100 years by Genocide when firearms have been confiscated.

 

It is VERY CLEAR that it is not NOT the innocent, gun carrying tax payer you have to worry about...

 

All they would need is a clean record

 

Bingo... most will fail this. If they don't, revert back to what is posted above... they'll get a gun one way or another... period!

[winki 0]

The New Jersey carry permitting system has, in essence, put a chilling effect on gun sales. By reducing the reasons to own a gun (of which personal carry is only one), restricting places where you can take a gun (to the range/gunsmith) and increasing the barriers to own one (with FID/Permitting), you effectively decrease the pool of available guns. Remember every illegal handgun starts out as a legal handgun. If you have fewer guns available to the law-abiding, you are technically reducing the pool of guns available to those who do not abide by laws. New Jersey may be able to argue that their weapons restrictions are a reasonable curb of rights under the same logic that makes it illegal to use your First Amendment right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. From a Liberal's perspective (and yes I am a Liberal), it's hard to say the New Jersey is wrong. I've never been a victim of gun violence. I've never known anyone who has been mugged. If an area is generally unsafe, I just don't go there. Are the laws a pain? Yes. Do they work? Honestly, they just might. But this is coming from a Cherry Hill Jew. I don't have to live in Camden, Trenton or Newark so I can't even put my brain into one of those dangerous places. But this is the kind of thinking that clouds the minds of my friends when the topic of guns come up at barbecues and cocktail parties. I live in a place where safety is a way of life. I'd bet you that all of the New Jersey defense attorneys and judges live in some pretty nice areas as well.

 

I would argue that if New Jersey's gun laws have indeed worked, they have worked perversely.

Law abiding citizens in Cherry Hill where you live face great difficulty buying a handgun and it's nearly impossible to carry a weapon as we all know.

However, take one look at Camden, Newark & Trenton and it's painfully obvious that the vast illicit market for firearms hasn't been impacted in the slightest. I work in Newark and I have spotted gangbangers packing heat in gas stations.

The New Jersey Assembly can pass all the laws they want but guns won't disappear. I'm also pretty sure heroin is completely prohibited under the law, but it strangely enough people find ways to get it...

 

As Mayor Corey Booker himself said, "Not one shooting in my city last year was by somebody who went, had a background check, bought a gun and shot somebody in my city. Does not happen."

 

I don't necessarily agree with John Lott and others who have argued that more gun ownership and concealed carry lowers the crime rate, but I certainly can't find one piece of statisical evidence that the inverse is true. No where has the crime rate actually increased after concealed carry became a law.

[sig2009 3]

The statistics show beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that where there is CCW the crime rate is lower. Problem is most politicians are only concerned with being elected and connot read or understand the facts even when they are right in front of them in black and white.

[sig2009 3]

What's wrong with Cherry Hill?

[Parker 213]

Bether,

 

I believe your comments and logic are sadly but compellingly true. Well said.

 

The New Jersey carry permitting system has, in essence, put a chilling effect on gun sales.

 

So true. And New Jersey's largely urban environment has an effect on gun sales. One only has to look at the firearms checked through NICS in New Jersey compared to any other state and it's evident New Jersey is not culturally hip to the safe use of firearms in the outdoors like her neighboring states Pennsylvania or New York.

[intercooler 41]

What would be NJ's best defense against the SAF suit? Since its a facial challenge, all the state has to do is just prove one time that their rules are necessary. Could any of us think of any scenario where NJ's justifiable need is necessary?

 

I'm honestly drawing blanks here as I could not think of any scenario where justifiable need is necessary UNLESS there was some new law that allowed violent criminals and felons access to guns. Since law abiding citizens aren't criminals, that wouldn't apply to us. So that argument would be a fail. That's all I can think of right now. What about you guys?

a state's rights argument. Tenth amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It would be interesting to see what ACTUAL enumerated rights the states and various parties like the feds have and would make for an interesting case

[stronski 0]

Basically, New Jersey is a big suburb of New York and Philadelphia. I would imagine that Route 295 and The New Jersey Turnpike are basically gigantic pipelines that feed narcotics into New York and Philadelphia. Camden, Trenton and Newark/Jersey City are ideal staging areas to efficiently package and distribute drugs before they are moved into New York and Philadelphia. You can reach Boston and points West from trains that connect from Trenton. Now that we have the River Line, you don't even need a car to move drugs from Camden to anywhere you want in the country. New Jersey is in the "perfect" place to distribute narcotics.

 

bs.

 

State "geography" is a worn out platitude used by the anti-gun crowd.

 

You can take the above quote and insert the cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Tampa and Atlanta, Georgia.

 

The South Florida metropolitan area is home to 5.4 million people and 11 million tourists a year with a area of 6,100 square miles. Much of herion sold in America comes through Florida.

 

 

Florida gun laws are the model for many states to follow.

 

The metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona contains 4.3 million people. Arizona has it's drug and illegal alien trafficking problems.

 

Arizona has few gun laws.

 

Illegal drugs move through Texas every day. I like Texas' gun and Castle doctrine laws.

 

New Jersey has 8.7 million people that live in 8,700 square miles. Most of which live in the northeastern part of the state.

 

Now imagine if you let every one of those drugs mules or drug dealers carry a gun. All they would need is a clean record, have three references, pay the $100 fee, and just like that, you have a drug dealer carrying a legal weapon and there isn't a darn thing the police can do about it.

 

Drug dealers don't do anything legal nor have their name attached to anything. You're idea does not happen. Drug dealers get their "girlfriends" to buy their guns out of state in exchange for drugs and "celebrity status". Drive over to Camden and ask someone on the corner for their social security card, driver's license, proof of car insurance or their 2009 tax return form.

 

By reducing the reasons to own a gun (of which personal carry is only one), restricting places where you can take a gun (to the range/gunsmith) and increasing the barriers to own one (with FID/Permitting), you effectively decrease the pool of available guns.

 

I would bet that 99.9% of the citizens of New Jersey that don't own firearms don't know the laws surrounding firearms and present gun owners are not turning their old guns in. New Jersey gun laws are not stopping any first time, law abiding citizen from purchasing a firearm. The last presidential cycle we saw an increase in firearm sales, even in New Jersey.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

bs.

 

State "geography" is a worn out platitude used by the anti-gun crowd.

 

You can take the above quote and insert the cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Tampa and Atlanta, Georgia.

 

The South Florida metropolitan area is home to 5.4 million people and 11 million tourists a year with a area of 6,100 square miles. Much of herion sold in America comes through Florida.

 

 

Florida gun laws are the model for many states to follow.

 

The metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona contains 4.3 million people. Arizona has it's drug and illegal alien trafficking problems.

 

Arizona has few gun laws.

 

Illegal drugs move through Texas every day. I like Texas' gun and Castle doctrine laws.

 

New Jersey has 8.7 million people that live in 8,700 square miles. Most of which live in the northeastern part of the state.

 

 

 

Drug dealers don't do anything legal nor have their name attached to anything. You're idea does not happen. Drug dealers get their "girlfriends" to buy their guns out of state in exchange for drugs and "celebrity status". Drive over to Camden and ask someone on the corner for their social security card, driver's license, proof of car insurance or their 2009 tax return form.

 

 

 

I would bet that 99.9% of the citizens of New Jersey that don't own firearms don't know the laws surrounding firearms and present gun owners are not turning their old guns in. New Jersey gun laws are not stopping any first time, law abiding citizen from purchasing a firearm. The last presidential cycle we saw an increase in firearm sales, even in New Jersey.

 

You have no idea how many people i have to educate on gun laws. When i picked up my AR from the store, some guy said, you can't have that, its an Assualt rifle, me and the guy helping with the forms looked at him in a bizarre fashion, and continued with the paper work, people who own firearms barely know the laws. Last year when i applied for my firearms stuff, i was under the impression that i had to do it, the way things were going in the state, i was not going to chance waiting for the laws to get worse. If anything the current attitude surround the laws is making people go out and buy them, its just like anything they do, it has the opposite effect of what they intend.

 

My friend put in his paper work for P2P, the way things are going he will probably use every single permit he applied for. If the process was smoother, and well more unified through out the state, he would have just bought 1, but now he said there's no way im going through all that BS again, im just gonna buy as much as i can. So much for the lower firearm sales. they just made it an easy decision for him to buy more guns!

[Guest megaman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the State of New Jersey can argue that they are a special case because of their geography.

 

I'm not a law enforcement officer, but I think some assumptions about crime can be derived logically.

 

Basically, New Jersey is a big suburb of New York and Philadelphia. I would imagine that Route 295 and The New Jersey Turnpike are basically gigantic pipelines that feed narcotics into New York and Philadelphia. Camden, Trenton and Newark/Jersey City are ideal staging areas to efficiently package and distribute drugs before they are moved into New York and Philadelphia. You can reach Boston and points West from trains that connect from Trenton. Now that we have the River Line, you don't even need a car to move drugs from Camden to anywhere you want in the country. New Jersey is in the "perfect" place to distribute narcotics.

 

Now imagine if you let every one of those drugs mules or drug dealers carry a gun. All they would need is a clean record, have three references, pay the $100 fee, and just like that, you have a drug dealer carrying a legal weapon and there isn't a darn thing the police can do about it.

 

Now, I recognize that this argument is absurd. Anyone who is already committing one illegal act (carrying drugs) will not be concerned about committing a second illegal act (illegally carrying a gun). But I would imagine that the defense could raise the specter of having someone who is already committing an illegal act trying to obtain a legal carry permit. I can even give you an example.

 

I know a man who used to have a NJ Permit to carry back in the 1980's because he carried large sums of cash. He had a storefront business, but he also sold Cuban cigars on the side to friends and friends of friends. For those of you who are not cigar smokers, Cuban cigars are illegal under the 1917 "Trading With The Enemy Act" and have been since February of 1962. This man was caught, tried and convicted. He is now a convicted felon who can no longer own a firearm. But he had a permit to carry and he had that permit while he was committing illegal acts. In this case, the act may seem innocuous (the absurdity of the Cigar embargo is another story) but it was still a federal crime.

 

So that is one argument that could be raised.

 

I can think of one more argument - the current New Jersey carry permitting system works to prevent gun deaths.

 

Think of it this way: remember that old statistic about how a gun is more dangerous to the owner than to a criminal? If you want to get technical those anti-gun folks are absolutely right, it is impossible for a person who does not posses a gun to accidentally shoot himself with a gun. It is impossible for a person who does not own a gun to have his own gun used on himself. If the state restricts those who can legally carry a weapon, there will be fewer shootings (justifiably or otherwise) because logically, there will be fewer guns carried in general. Now if you want to talk about *violence*, well, that is a different story. You can do violence with just about any object, but if that object is not a gun, then you will not have a shooting death. It may be a death, but it won't be a shooting death. In that sense, the anti-gun people are absolutely right. New Jersey's system helps prevent shooting deaths.

 

The New Jersey carry permitting system has, in essence, put a chilling effect on gun sales. By reducing the reasons to own a gun (of which personal carry is only one), restricting places where you can take a gun (to the range/gunsmith) and increasing the barriers to own one (with FID/Permitting), you effectively decrease the pool of available guns. Remember every illegal handgun starts out as a legal handgun. If you have fewer guns available to the law-abiding, you are technically reducing the pool of guns available to those who do not abide by laws. New Jersey may be able to argue that their weapons restrictions are a reasonable curb of rights under the same logic that makes it illegal to use your First Amendment right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. From a Liberal's perspective (and yes I am a Liberal), it's hard to say the New Jersey is wrong. I've never been a victim of gun violence. I've never known anyone who has been mugged. If an area is generally unsafe, I just don't go there. Are the laws a pain? Yes. Do they work? Honestly, they just might. But this is coming from a Cherry Hill Jew. I don't have to live in Camden, Trenton or Newark so I can't even put my brain into one of those dangerous places. But this is the kind of thinking that clouds the minds of my friends when the topic of guns come up at barbecues and cocktail parties. I live in a place where safety is a way of life. I'd bet you that all of the New Jersey defense attorneys and judges live in some pretty nice areas as well.

 

Now that being said, let me stop the flamethrowers before you light them up. I may be a Liberal, but I am a Second Amendment Liberal. I don't personally desire to carry a gun, but I feel that should be a matter of personal choice, not one of government mandate. Do New Jersey's laws work? They just might. Are they unconstitutional? They just might be. But freedom isn't a Chinese Restaurant. You can't pick one amendment from Column A and a different amendment from Column B. It's all or nothing.

 

This whole carry issue comes down to one thing: Are we a United States with One Constitution, or a we a United States with a constitution that can be applied differently in different places? I know what I choose, and I know there could be consequences to that choice. But it is the choice that I make to live in a free society. The people of this state should have all of their rights, not just the rights that lawmakers think we should have: all.

 

-Bether

 

 

Those who sacrifice liberty for security get neither and deserve none... Ben Franklin.

I would highly doubt that NJ would get special status as a 'sensitive area'

[halbautomatisch 60]

a state's rights argument. Tenth amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It would be interesting to see what ACTUAL enumerated rights the states and various parties like the feds have and would make for an interesting case

That would never fly. The state could then overrule the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments if states rights were paramount to the Bill of Rights.

[LorenzoS 100]

You guys are a bit off topic. The OP asked what would NJ's defense against the lawsuit be, not for opinions on why we think the suit should be successful.

 

I think there will be two parts to their defense. First, Heller and McDonald were specifically about owning guns in the home. The judges did not apply the RKBA outside the home, although they left that question open for another case.

 

Second, they also allowed for "reasonable restrictions" and to prevent the use of handguns in "sensitive places" which is obviously very vague and will be interpreted differently around the country.

 

So NJ will claim that because NJ is so populated, the entire state is a "sensitive place" and the danger from wild west shootouts over parking spaces and accidental discharges in supermarkets will outweigh the rare need to defend oneself. This, in their minds, will be a "reasonable restriction."

[stronski 0]

So NJ will claim that because NJ is so populated, the entire state is a "sensitive place" and the danger from wild west shootouts over parking spaces and accidental discharges in supermarkets will outweigh the rare need to defend oneself. This, in their minds, will be a "reasonable restriction."

 

Lorenzo, see my previous post. You've been swayed that a lot of people living or working in close proximity to each other leads to violent crime. If this is the state's platform, it'll get blown out of the water. New Jersey's population situation is not unique. Every state has metropolitan areas, congested housing, mall parking lots and super markets.

 

The argument is purely subjective and groundless.

[LorenzoS 100]

You've been swayed that a lot of people living or working in close proximity to each other leads to violent crime.

No, read the OP's original question. He asked what the state's position might be in defending against the SAF suit, not if I agree with it or what my position is on the issue.

[unclenunzie 3]

What would be NJ's best defense against the SAF suit? Since its a facial challenge, all the state has to do is just prove one time that their rules are necessary. Could any of us think of any scenario where NJ's justifiable need is necessary?

 

I believe the OP's premise is faulty, in that the defendant (NJ) must show one example where the law is LEGAL, not where it is "necessary". But to answer the question, I believe they could show a case where an ordinary citizen's carry permit was approved... if any have been.

 

Having said this, the legal team prosecuting this case against NJ surely will have done research into the pool of applications submitted, approved, and denied. They surely must know that a total of ZERO applications have been approved (perhaps since McDonald), and thus this argument by NJ cannot be made successfully.

 

Other arguments which would support the current law both in fact and as applied would not seem capable of standing as legal. The arguments all depend on denying an enumerated constitutional right under certain circumstances. Strict scrutiny is the standard usually applied to such rights, and require a compelling state need, and be tailored to meet that need as narrowly as possible. It is my personal non-lawyer opinion that neither test can be met by the state, one because there is simply no evidence in the long history of modern carry in the USA that carry increases crime or violence. Secondly because the law is not narrowly tailed, in fact is is so broad as to deny the right to everyone who would exercise their right.

 

Now let me twist this in another direction: If NJ was magically a pro-gun rights state, or even say moderately positive or neutral, then the CLEOS and the judges might approve the applications, and there'd be a normal distribution of carry permits issued, say anywhere between 2-4% of population in NJ. Then while the law itself might still be unconstitutional/illegal, the facial challenge would probably fail, but as-applied would succeed. It might make NJ look a lot like California, where county sheriffs have discretion and only the accident of geography affects your right to carry.

[Downr@nge 22]

Unclenunzie, the question was written in a rush but its not faulty. Legal, necessary, were not splitting hairs here.

 

Also, in my non lawyer opinion, I think the SAF isn't banking on ZERO permits being issued completely, I think they moreso are banking on the fact that the justifiable need has fallen in other places around the country, namely California.

 

To clarify, my question is, when NJ gets to present its case to the judge, what could they possibly say? How best could they defend against the plaintiffs assuming they go in there and say something along the lines of the law is wrong facially? How will NJ respond to such a claim?

 

I just cannot think of any legit defense they could put up, but then again, I am not a lawyer. Maybe they could argue someone who lives next to a school maybe within 50ft applied for a carry permit and by virtue of them living in a school zone, they would be breaking the law the minute they stepped foot outside the house. Then NJ could argue they aren't in the business of entrapment or aiding and abetting by issuing people carry permits that live within school zones.

 

But then again, this could open up a whole can of worms as NJ's defense would be based on Gun Free School Zone laws which are already questionable. But hey I am not a lawyer so this is just 100% pure, unadulterated speculation.

[Recon Racoon 49]

New Jersey's defense will be perjury and skewed facts. They will flat out lie to continue with the gun laws in place now, and they skew critical facts about those that own fire arms so they can achieve their goals in a court of law. Its a sad thing, but its true.

 

As far as the argument about Gun Ownership lowering Crime, it's true. I lived in Cape Coral, Florida for a year. The city had 119,000+ people at any given time during the year more than 125,000 during the winter months. The state residents that lived there year round, I'd say 80% had a CCW license and 90-95% had a gun in the home. It was one of the top ten safest places to live in the state. But a few times there was a murder or a break-in but the crime rate was far below other cities in the state. And IMO it was because of the gun laws, and a Texas like Castle Doctrine. The threat of a population being able to fight back is a bigger deterrent to violent crimes than a police force.

[unclenunzie 3]

Downr@nge,

Fair enough, though I do feel the distinction should be clear as it is fundamental to the question.

 

I agree with you that NJ has no legit way to show the law is constitutional. I don't think the plaintiff's lawyers are depending on anything in other states, though. They are busting down the requirement for "need" with no possible "need" actually ever passing muster with NJ officials. Note that to win the facial challenge all NJ has to do is come up with one example of how the law is legal, and to do that they would need to show that a permit was in fact possible to obtain. At least this is how I read the posted arguments of people who know way more than I do (which isn't much). So if you can take this line of reasoning as factual, the lawyers must know that no permits have been issued, all applications have been denied. If not then NJ could present a case where a carry permit was granted and have done with the facial challenge. This seems so obvious to me that I really can't believe any carry permits have been issued post McDonald (to joe or jane citizen).

 

I know the context of the Heller decision regarding "the core lawful purpose of self-defense" was "in the home", however the NJ law as is would violate that judgment of the SCOTUS. For if as SCOTUS has ruled that self-defense is a core lawful purpose, then self-defense is a pure, unquestionable "need" that is valid on its face. So by never approving permits with self-defense as the stated need, NJ law violates the second amendment.