A Sliver of Good News

[PDM 91]

The 7th Circuit denied Illinois' request for rehearing of the carry decision, which means it either gets appealed to the Supremes or Illinois ban on concealed carry is history. At the very least we have a split in the circuits and this will wind up in front of the Supreme Court next year. Will be interesting to see what happens in the 3rd circuit.

 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-22/illinois-bid-for-rehearing-of-gun-carry-appeal-rejected

[reloaderguy 30]

It will be like NJ. May issue where no one gets a permit!

[ryan_j 0]

NJ's issue isn't just "may issue." Connecticut is "may issue" but if you apply you'll get a permit.

 

NJ's issue is the justifiable need standard which is arbitrary and not defined, and that is before the court of appeals right now.

[jdubsss 0]

I could live with 10 rounds if we could get a damn CCW in this POS state

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I could live with 10 rounds if we could get a damn CCW in this POS state

 

Why even offer a compromise?? What have the given to us?? By the way, it's not compromising if only one side takes and the other side only gives and it's only been like that for about 47 years in this state, it's time it stopped.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jdubsss 0]

You're absolutely correct that there should be NO compromise as these are god given rights. However, I'm just saying I could live with it if that were the case.

 

Since we're probably gonna drop to 10 rounds AND have no CCW - I suppose I'll be ok with being a felon in the state of NJ until I move.

[halbautomatisch 60]

NJ's issue isn't just "may issue." Connecticut is "may issue" but if you apply you'll get a permit.

 

NJ's issue is the justifiable need standard which is arbitrary and not defined, and that is before the court of appeals right now.

"justifiable need" is defined in NJ.

 

Under N.J.A.C 13:54-2.4

 

(d) Each application form shall also be accompanied by a written certification of need which shall be under oath and

which:

1. In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific

threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means

other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate the existence of

any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement

agencies; or

2. In the case of employees of private detective agencies, armored car companies and private security companies, that:

i. In the course of performing statutorily authorized duties, the applicant is subject to a substantial threat of serious

bodily harm; and

ii. That carrying a handgun by the applicant is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious bodily harm to

any person.

[Chvl67 0]

No, it's kind of not defined. See the SAF vs NJ sticky. There's no way anyone can convince me that being targeted by HA is not being in danger-or a part time Sherriff. There's no reason that those should have seen a court room.

[johnott 5]

The problem with getting a CCW is that when you are denied it has to be reported on your next FPID or Handgun purchasers permit application (question #19 of STS-33).

 

"(19) Have you ever had a firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun, or permit to carry a handgun refused or revoked?"

 

In answering "yes" you raise a red flag that jeopardizes your chances for approval every time you apply for an FPID or permit. If anything the CCW question should be separate and should read something like this;

 

"Have you ever had a permit to carry refused or revoked for any reason other than "insufficient justifiable need" (check here) and explain."

 

If they did it this way we could apply for CCW's constantly... and the massive amount of rejections would give suitable reasons for a legal challenge. This whole issue of justifiable need is bogus... how can anyone accurately predict when they'll need a gun? Can a person predict when they'll need life insurance?

[wooly bugger 1]

You're absolutely correct that there should be NO compromise as these are god given rights. However, I'm just saying I could live with it if that were the case.

 

Since we're probably gonna drop to 10 rounds AND have no CCW - I suppose I'll be ok with being a felon in the state of NJ until I move.

I might have considered compromise before this whole fiasco. The other side has shown bad faith. I don't negotiate with people in bad faith. I defeat them.