Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/04/new-jersey-permit-to-carry-handgun-granted-after-supreme-court-remand/#axzz6JyfpBOpw

 

if this is being discussed in another thread please disregard.

 

Have any of the experts broken this decision down and how it affects your average citizen who's only justifiable need is the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, revenger said:

Have any of the experts broken this decision down and how it affects your average citizen who's only justifiable need is the 2A.

Hi, I'll be the first "Expert".

There's nuthin' to break-down, thank God!  It's self-explanatory, and a great ad for Nappen.

Dude is a security guard lookin' for a carry permit for the job.  In the same town btw as the viral story of the Brinks Armored Car security guard gettin' jammed-up one block from his residence.  Justifiable Need is still alive & well, so you're carry permit application gets granted when you're DEAD, just like before :) 

I'm just thankful it went the way it did so no bad precedents were set in court that might derail all of the hard work that real #2AHeavyLifters like Cheeseman, Factor, Schmutter, Bach, Colandro & myself have thus far accomplished.

~R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the NJ supreme court decision that says that a judge can't deny your carry application without a court hearing.

The plaintiff in the case in the article sought a carry permit in connection with an armed security job, and was approved by the police chief.  Was denied without a hearing by the judge, which started the case.  After remand from NJ Supreme Court, he was granted the permit.

I don't think this has any effect on the "average citizen" seeking a carry permit not connected to an armed security job.  You *might* convince the police chief, but the judge will very likely deny you on the justifiable need test.  Net effect is that now you'll get your denial from the judge in a scheduled court hearing instead of just a letter.

However, it doesn't really hurt to try!  The worst that happens is you get denied and have to put down the denial reason "lack of justifiable need" on future applications.  NJSP Det. Brett Bloom has verified that this denial is *NOT* a negative factor on future applications.

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jm1827 said:

So, does this mean that from now on if a judge denies a permit to carry application in NJ that there will need to be a hearing explaining why?

Knowing the way that NJ courts and politicians adapt the laws to  their favor whenever there is a 2A win anywhere in the country what will now probably happen is that that appeal and hearing will be one and the same.     I would think it would go something like this:  police chief approves permit,  now it will go to a hearing before the same judge who will deny vs. an appeal to the same judge who would also deny.   doesn't look like anything really changed and this guy next year will have to hire a law firm and go through the same process.   by that time  the anti-american judges, police chiefs and politicians will craft a more draconian process.    that's the way I see it.

If the win does not come from SCOTUS or a federal law that is correctly written with penalties for the violators   (  same anti-americans referenced above )   so severe such as a public hanging, firing squad or dropped out of a helicopter than this victory is really nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were just about any where other than NJ I'd say this is a big step in the right direction. Where I see an absurd argument the state/local courts will take is

f a court has any questions regarding the applicant or his or her permit to carry application, it must hold a hearing to address those questions. The court should not simply deny the application.”

 “[A] hearing must be held whenever the court contemplates denying a handgun carry-permit[.]”.

The merriam-webster dictionary defines contemplates as

1to view or consider with continued attention meditate on 

2to view as likely or probable or as an end or intention

So if a judge looks at a filling that says "justifiable need is, self defense or 2A or someone wrote with their finger on my cars filthy back window "I'm going to kill you". The judge immediately decides without questions or contemplation justifiable need is not met or warranted, could this not then be argued (granted absurdly) no rearing is required?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 12:24 PM, revenger said:

Knowing the way that NJ courts and politicians adapt the laws to  their favor whenever there is a 2A win anywhere in the country what will now probably happen is that that appeal and hearing will be one and the same.     I would think it would go something like this:  police chief approves permit,  now it will go to a hearing before the same judge who will deny vs. an appeal to the same judge who would also deny.   doesn't look like anything really changed and this guy next year will have to hire a law firm and go through the same process.   by that time  the anti-american judges, police chiefs and politicians will craft a more draconian process.    that's the way I see it.

If the win does not come from SCOTUS or a federal law that is correctly written with penalties for the violators   (  same anti-americans referenced above )   so severe such as a public hanging, firing squad or dropped out of a helicopter than this victory is really nothing.

I like "dropped out of a helicopter" myself then they can see it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 12:24 PM, revenger said:

Knowing the way that NJ courts and politicians adapt the laws to  their favor whenever there is a 2A win anywhere in the country what will now probably happen is that that appeal and hearing will be one and the same.     I would think it would go something like this:  police chief approves permit,  now it will go to a hearing before the same judge who will deny vs. an appeal to the same judge who would also deny.   doesn't look like anything really changed and this guy next year will have to hire a law firm and go through the same process.   by that time  the anti-american judges, police chiefs and politicians will craft a more draconian process.    that's the way I see it.

If the win does not come from SCOTUS or a federal law that is correctly written with penalties for the violators   (  same anti-americans referenced above )   so severe such as a public hanging, firing squad or dropped out of a helicopter than this victory is really nothing.

Just means they get to say no to your face.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...