SJG

NJ Fed Ct rejects Justifiable Need Challenge

33 posts in this topic

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
 
      

 

 

 

 

handgun-Article-201805231703.jpgCredit: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the OP for posting this recent development. The formatting seems to be a bit messed up though, so I found the article... and I'm adding the link to it here in case anyone wants to read the full article:   https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2018/05/22/us-judge-rejects-challenge-to-nj-firearm-carry-restrictions/?slreturn=20180424140515

BTW, if I recall correctly, this initial rejection was fully anticipated by ANJRPC based on the leftward lean of that particular district court. They already figured they would be taking this case to higher courts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it but the judge isn’t wrong. Wrenn was decided by a different District (DC) so he has to look back Drake as precedence.   SCOTUS would have to affirm Wrenn before it becomes precedence nation-wide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I hate to say it but the judge isn’t wrong. Wrenn was decided by a different District (DC) so he has to look back Drake as precedence.   SCOTUS would have to affirm Wrenn before it becomes precedence nation-wide. 

Correct. Unfortunately it seems that the only justices willing to follow precedent are on those cases that would benefit us if they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how that whole "precedent" thing only works for antis.  How about the precedent set by Scotus's MacDonald decision, where the right to have a firearm was affirmed as a personal RIGHT.  But somehow in NJ that RIGHT is illegal except..., where you have to ask permission to exercise a RIGHT, where you have to pay >100 dollars to exercise a RIGHT.  Yeah precedent my ass.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobblackrifle said:

SJG

Is there an appeal process from a dismissal?

Yes, Bob.

His name is Little Boy and he effectively weighs 20 kilotons.

He loves to find golden domes when everyone is there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"who concluded that he failed to establish specific threats that put him in special and unavoidable danger"

So how many politicians, judges, retired leo's and so on had to give "specific threats" to be allowed to defend themselves and their family? So if I have a "stranger" leave a threatening message on voice mail is that enough? Do I actually need to get attacked and beat up? Does the beating have to cause hospitalization? So in NJ "law abiding citizen" basically means "target on back".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"who concluded that he failed to establish specific threats that put him in special and unavoidable danger"
So how many politicians, judges, retired leo's and so on had to give "specific threats" to be allowed to defend themselves and their family? So if I have a "stranger" leave a threatening message on voice mail is that enough? Do I actually need to get attacked and beat up? Does the beating have to cause hospitalization? So in NJ "law abiding citizen" basically means "target on back".
It took the one guy two hospital stays courtesy of the Pagans IIRC.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 10:18 PM, Paulie Buffo said:

"who concluded that he failed to establish specific threats that put him in special and unavoidable danger"

So how many politicians, judges, retired leo's and so on had to give "specific threats" to be allowed to defend themselves and their family? So if I have a "stranger" leave a threatening message on voice mail is that enough? Do I actually need to get attacked and beat up? Does the beating have to cause hospitalization? So in NJ "law abiding citizen" basically means "target on back".

I've read about people being stalked by a violent person and not being able to get a concealed carry. People who regularly receive death threats and can't get a concealed carry.

It's a disgrace of a system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read about people being stalked by a violent person and not being able to get a concealed carry. People who regularly receive death threats and can't get a concealed carry.
It's a disgrace of a system.
Thank Democrats

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Thank Democrats

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

It's easy when people have no experience with guns so they are scared of them. My mom's always been nervous about guns. Last time she was over, my wife and I shower her our guns and my mom freaked over me having an "assault rifle". I let her hold it and then grabbed some ammo and showed her what .22lr looks like. Let her hold the Beretta and I could see the fear leaving her. It's such a silly thing to fear if you treat it with the respect it deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy when people have no experience with guns so they are scared of them. My mom's always been nervous about guns. Last time she was over, my wife and I shower her our guns and my mom freaked over me having an "assault rifle". I let her hold it and then grabbed some ammo and showed her what .22lr looks like. Let her hold the Beretta and I could see the fear leaving her. It's such a silly thing to fear if you treat it with the respect it deserves.
Yet you vote Dem

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



... Last time she was over, my wife and I shower her our guns and my mom freaked over me having an "assault rifle"...


I shower with my guns too. But only handguns.

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sniper22 said:

Are they Zestfully Clean after the shower?

 

When I first read it I thought he said he showers with his wife and mother. I had to leave the internet until the dry-heaves stopped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
122ewrs.jpg
So you're a Liberal who votes Republican. Why do I find that hard to believe. You didn't vote Obama either?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

How did you mix me up with his post

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, capt14k said:

So you're a Liberal who votes Republican. Why do I find that hard to believe. You didn't vote Obama either?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

How did you mix me up with his post

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Because you don't seem to be able to fathom what it means to be an independent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you don't seem to be able to fathom what it means to be an independent?
These days an independent is really just a cop out. You either vote Dem and are really an Anti. You vote GOP and are likely Pro 2A. Or you waste your vote on third party candidates.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:

These days an independent is really just a cop out. You either vote Dem and are really an Anti. You vote GOP and are likely Pro 2A. Or you waste your vote on third party candidates.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Scary that people believe this is actually true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:

These days an independent is really just a cop out. You either vote Dem and are really an Anti. You vote GOP and are likely Pro 2A. Or you waste your vote on third party candidates.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

To quote an old Preacher friend..."ain't nuttin in the middle of the road but dead armadillos"

22 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Scary that people believe this is actually true.

So you're a dead armadillo?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W2MC said:

To quote an old Preacher friend..."ain't nuttin in the middle of the road but dead armadillos"

So you're a dead armadillo?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. Anyone who thinks you can only vote one way ever is what's wrong with this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. Anyone who thinks you can only vote one way ever is what's wrong with this country.
No those who vote Dem or waste their vote on Gary Johnson and other 3rd Party aka have no chance candidates is what is wrong with the country

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/3/2018 at 7:01 PM, Greenday said:

I mean, I mentioned in my self-introduction that I'm on the liberal side of things.

 

5 hours ago, Greenday said:

Because you don't seem to be able to fathom what it means to be an independent?

Wow, this boy is full of contradictions today. Seems to be a pattern.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • Yes, this was around 2010 or so.  Between this and the Cx4, Beretta had the space-gun market cornered.  A number of retailers still list it but all show it out-of-stock or discontinued.  I recall there will different barrel lengths too, particularly 4" and 6". https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1004210822/beretta-u22-neos-carbine-kit-22-long-rifle-1-in-16-twist-16-1-4-blue
    • I apologize if my posts were taken the wrong way. But yours were also much more adversarial than they needed to be.  I suggest we drop it since further posts like that on either side don’t help anything.    As for Reloaderz. I hope they do well. NJ needs more ranges, of any and all types. Anything to expand the positive visibility and push back against the perceived stigma firearms have in this state. 
    •  that writer should be that writer should be embarrassed, you don't pick 3 handguns with a life of less than three years and claim that they are part of the best ever. I'm absolutely going to agree with the Glock just in terms of shears numbers in use reliability and other variables but the Sig the Smith & Wesson and the Heckler LOL  did you read the did you read the article? They gave the reasoning why and hard to argue against it actually.
    • Wow, vaguley remember it... was it when the gun first came out? Generally though, I think the Neos, as cool as it is, was too "atypical" in a crowded marketplace dominated by the Buckmark, Ruger and to lower extent the S&W Victory/22a models. Once you go into higher end, like SW 41 and dedicated 22lr competition guns, no contest there. 




    • Oh Rosey!! You're my fav!
      I had to clarify because my phone was blowing up with notifications because I missed one word: "field" before strip.
      The banter won't scare me off, I'm a little more thick skinned than that! In response to spending more quality time together, I'll only agree if it means busting clays!

      And a happiest of thanksgivings to your beautiful wife and family and of course that fluffy kitten of yours!

      Love,
      Rhi

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.