CC coming to NJ?

[Newtonian 453]

I read somewhere, 5-6 years ago, that if a certain number of states passed concealed carry laws that the remaining states would be required to pass them as well. Sounds sort of kooky. How this could be enforced is beyond me.

 

Has anyone else heard of similar fairy tales?

[RubberBullets 65]

Whatever do you mean? New Jersey already has a concealed carry law...

 

They get around allowing law abiding citizens to get CCW because the state is "may issue" you have to prove that you have a justifiable need. In the case of NJ.. if you can apply for your CCW after you are shot dead you'd probably still get denied.

[ryan_j 0]

I read somewhere, 5-6 years ago, that if a certain number of states passed concealed carry laws that the remaining states would be required to pass them as well. Sounds sort of kooky. How this could be enforced is beyond me.

 

Has anyone else heard of similar fairy tales?

 

It's a fairy tale.

 

What could happen is national reciprocity as there already is for retired law enforcement.

[Newtonian 453]

Of course. We already "have" CCW. 

 

Every news source reported that "Illinois is the only state not to allow concealed carry." They were right. 

 

So what's the deal on reciprocity? Seems that would be an interesting route to pursue nationally. NJ does, after all, issue some permits to big shots. If we had national reciprocity, NJ would be forced to recognize licenses from PA, WV, FL, etc. 

 

I don't have stats, but I'd bet that 25,000-50,000 NJ residents currently hold out-of-state licenses. Maybe even 100,000. Reciprocity would reduce NJ carry laws to that of the least-restrictive state issuing non-resident permits. Unless reciprocity would be limited to resident permits, it would blow NJ's "may issue" out of the water, don't you think?

[GRIZ 3,369]

I read somewhere, 5-6 years ago, that if a certain number of states passed concealed carry laws that the remaining states would be required to pass them as well. Sounds sort of kooky. How this could be enforced is beyond me.

 

Has anyone else heard of similar fairy tales?

The 10th Amendment leaves that up to the individual state. What has to happen is NJ carry laws have to be brought to SCOTUS for them to rule that NJs definition and application of justifiable need is reasonable.

 

What happens in other states is that states business. States can have laws that are more restrictive but they can't have laws contrary to Federal law.

[henrym 19]

no, we wont.

[mikelets456 78]

no, we wont.

 

I agree. I wish NJ would issue CCW as I work in NJ 5 days a week and visit friends occasionally on the weekends. But I agree with your sentiment and here's the reason why...people are BRAINWASHED! People of this state are so brainwashed into thinking everything the State does is good and right. Here's the kicker...[even]most of my Conservative friends have also bought into this as well. Meaning, when I talk to them about a gun I bought they ask how PA issues FOID cards....I'm like, "really"? When I tell them PA does not require a FOID card to buy guns, then explain that I can simply show them my license, do a back ground check, pay and leave. Every time (never fails) they will ask a second time... "Wait, then how do you buy a gun"? I have to explain again about simply show your license,background check and pay. They simply don't get it and a few of my friends went into a 5-10 minute discussion that starts off like:

"wait...so you're saying you don't need to get any type of card, finger printing or waiting period...How do they keep track of what you buy"?

 

After a few times of going over it, the realization seems to kick in...However, they seem to understand the LTCF thing pretty well. It's amazing that just a 200 yards across a river there is a different mentality.

[ryan_j 0]

The 10th Amendment leaves that up to the individual state. What has to happen is NJ carry laws have to be brought to SCOTUS for them to rule that NJs definition and application of justifiable need is reasonable.

 

What happens in other states is that states business. States can have laws that are more restrictive but they can't have laws contrary to Federal law.

 

It doesn't have to be NJ. It can be another state like IL or MD or HI or CA. Once SCOTUS rules it will apply nationwide. 

 

And no I don't share the pessimism. I never say never. It can happen. Heller was a long shot but it happened. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

It doesn't have to be NJ. It can be another state like IL or MD or HI or CA. Once SCOTUS rules it will apply nationwide. 

 

And no I don't share the pessimism. I never say never. It can happen. Heller was a long shot but it happened.

 

You are correct in saying if it applies to one state it will apply to all. However, the "justifiable need" and its application NJ requires is unique to NJ and would have to be ruled on by SCOTUS. SCOTUS can't say you have to issue permits to every law abiding citizen as that would violate the 10A. SCOTUS can say the system in NJ prevents citizens from exercising their 2A right and the state has to enable law abiding citizens to exercise this right. There is a big difference.

 

For example Heller threw out DCs ban on handguns. That's what was presented to them and that's what they ruled on. Citizens in DC still can't get carry permits as that issue was not presented to them. That was the issue that resulted in I'LL getting CC.

[mikelets456 78]

You are correct in saying if it applies to one state it will apply to all. However, the "justifiable need" and its application NJ requires is unique to NJ and would have to be ruled on by SCOTUS. SCOTUS can't say you have to issue permits to every law abiding citizen as that would violate the 10A. SCOTUS can say the system in NJ prevents citizens from exercising their 2A right and the state has to enable law abiding citizens to exercise this right. There is a big difference.

 

For example Heller threw out DCs ban on handguns. That's what was presented to them and that's what they ruled on. Citizens in DC still can't get carry permits as that issue was not presented to them. That was the issue that resulted in I'LL getting CC.

 

 

Didn't the 4th circuit find Maryland's "Justifiable need" clause relevant?

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/03/4th-circuit-overturns-md-district-court-on-woollard-justifiable-need/#axzz2XtxPmt2n

Where does it go next? SCOTUS?

[ryan_j 0]

You are correct in saying if it applies to one state it will apply to all. However, the "justifiable need" and its application NJ requires is unique to NJ and would have to be ruled on by SCOTUS. SCOTUS can't say you have to issue permits to every law abiding citizen as that would violate the 10A. SCOTUS can say the system in NJ prevents citizens from exercising their 2A right and the state has to enable law abiding citizens to exercise this right. There is a big difference.

 

For example Heller threw out DCs ban on handguns. That's what was presented to them and that's what they ruled on. Citizens in DC still can't get carry permits as that issue was not presented to them. That was the issue that resulted in I'LL getting CC.

 

Justifiable need is by no means unique to NJ.HI, MD and NY have the same. They call it different things but it is the same thing - discretionary issue based on need. 

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Maybe we should try to get a Constitutional amendment giving us the right to keep and bear arms..  Oh wait, we already have that!

[mipafox 438]

 

I read somewhere, 5-6 years ago, that if a certain number of states passed concealed carry laws that the remaining states would be required to pass them as well. Sounds sort of kooky. How this could be enforced is beyond me.

 

Has anyone else heard of similar fairy tales?

 

 

Yes, but not for CC.

 

The purpose of the US Supreme Court since the first half of the 20th Century is to institute Progressivism. That is the destruction of the US Constitution without the use of Constitutional Amendments, usually through a process of incrementalism in case law.

 

If there was only 1 law in the US Constitution, that "The Government of These United States Shall Never Wear the Color Green," today every government employee would be wearing green. The explanation would be something like, "There is a lot of case law on this over the last 80 years, and ending with the most recent ruling saying that the current color of dress of government employees can be consider three shades from aquamarine, and as such the compelling interests of the government certainly outweigh the law."

 

One of the tricks they have used is to gather up evidence of laws of states they agree with. If they can point out a few states passing laws they agree with, they will use them as excuses to ignore the Constitution based on their assumption that "the times are a-changin'." No Constitutional Amendment required, that's too messy for the Communist cause. They'll even cite laws from other countries.

 

So, yes, they use it to argue that the federal government can ignore the Constitution to pass illegal laws that they have no power to pass. They will not use it to enforce RKBA against New Jersey.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

until someone catches on that nj has unreasonable criteria for "justifiable cause", we won't get it here.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

Maybe we should try to get a Constitutional amendment giving us the right to keep and bear arms..  Oh wait, we already have that!

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution (Amendments 1-10) do not "give" us any rights, it acknowledges or recognizes the natural rights of liberty and property we are born with.

[raz-0 1,259]

I read somewhere, 5-6 years ago, that if a certain number of states passed concealed carry laws that the remaining states would be required to pass them as well. Sounds sort of kooky. How this could be enforced is beyond me.

 

Has anyone else heard of similar fairy tales?

There have been bills floated for that. There have also been bills with the same logic floated for splitting a states electoral votes to conform to the popular vote breakdown. Neither has become law.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Justifiable need is by no means unique to NJ.HI, MD and NY have the same. They call it different things but it is the same thing - discretionary issue based on need.

 

I understand that. The "need" part of discretionary issue varies greatly. IIRC DE is may issue but if you say "I want to be able to defend myself if I get attacked" you'll get your permit. The same reason may suffice in Plattsburgh, NY but not Manhattan.

[ryan_j 0]

I understand that. The "need" part of discretionary issue varies greatly. IIRC DE is may issue but if you say "I want to be able to defend myself if I get attacked" you'll get your permit. The same reason may suffice in Plattsburgh, NY but not Manhattan.

 

I wasn't talking about may issue. I was talking about need being required for issue.

 

MD and HI have this along with NJ. RI also requires a "proper showing of need" even though they are shall issue. RI is essentially NO ISSUE in practice because of that. The AG uses a loophole to exercise discretion. However they have local permits.

 

NY is on a county by county basis, as is California (some counties in CA are shall issue in practice). 

 

Other states that are may issue like you said will accept "self defense" or "all lawful purposes" as the reason. Connecticut for example will accept that. 

 

The wikipedia chart is a good reference since it breaks down what is the statute and the practice. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States