ryan_j

One of the plaintiffs, Piszczatoski was a member of the coast guard. He could not get a NJ carry permit while he was active but when he retired he could get a retired LEO permit, which he did. Obviously I think everyone should have the right to carry but all of these people should have qualified. One of them, John M Drake owns a business that restocks ATMs. He carries large amounts of cash. He was denied a carry permit. Sort of similar to Pantano who carries large amounts of cash payments for his landscape business. Yet the superior courts have no problem issuing carry permits to armored car drivers who also shuttle around cash. The state is in fact inconsistently applying the standard. This should not have been upheld. But you knew that already.

How could that be? Maryland has justifiable need just like NJ. They call it "good and substantial cause." In other words, carry permits are rarely issued there. So either the guy had to have been illegally carrying the firearm or he was also a cop. Or he had no firearm and the claim that he was brandishing was made up.

So I was wrong about one thing. The SCOTUS may hear an appeal from the state supreme court if it pertains to a constitutional matter. So this could be one avenue to SCOTUS.

And here's a point I want to make. I keep hearing from cops on this board about how civilians don't really care about the police and if they refuse to comply with gun control, that civilians will just stand by and watch the cops who took a stand have their lives ruined. Well, here we have police chief Mark Kessler. He said something controversial, over the top and proclaimed that he "will not comply" with gun control (in this case, the UN small arms treaty). He gets suspended by his town and TONS of gun toting 2nd amendment supporters show up in his defense. He has support not only in his town but nationwide too. So what does that say? It says that the assumption that 2A supporting civilians will simply throw LE under the bus if they stand with us is unequivocally FALSE. In fact, his "brothers" in LE are the ones throwing him under the bus!!!

I didn't have mine when I joined.

I want to see them apply that to something else, like same sex marriage... I'm betting they wouldn't apply that reasoning.

Thanks. I'm not trying to pry into his personal life but I'm wondering since the state got what out of him that they'd be back to their old tricks. He absolutely needs his permit and I hope he gets to renew and keep it.

Nope. No nonresident permits in Alabama.

Jog your memory a bit. Muller was the head plaintiff of this case and he got a permit in May 2011. So 2 years have passed since Muller got his permit. I'm just curious, was he able to renew? Because supposedly the permit is valid for 2 years and you have to provide justifiable need for a renewal.

Well that's a risk we have to take.

NJ2AS is at some of them.

About time they ended Jim Crow may issue.

3 more years of Obama appointees. Let's hope none of them on the SC resign or croak. And if Hillary wins in 2016, kiss your 2A goodbye!

CT has a peculiar scheme. First you get a local temporary permit and then apply for a state permit. However you can apply if you are a nonresident and if you move later on to CT you can keep your state permit, just change your address to CT by submitting a change address to DESPP. But in practice, CT is shall issue. Another issue that CT, NY, MA have is that to even purchase a handgun you need a carry permit. Oh and RI is shall issue but both local authorities and the AG issue permits. The AG has been denying people for lack of proper cause. But if you are a resident you can apply to your local authorities and get a permit that is good in the state. I kind of wish we had local discretion for permit issue. What jams us up is the superior court.

I see what you did there

One good thing is that he even referenced the Pantano case which is headed to the NJSC:

Was that David Jensen or Alan Gura? Both of them spoke at NJ2AS meetings, IIRC and both were counsel for this particular case.

This should tell you what a pile of elephant dung this opinion was, except for Hardiman's excellent dissent. Yeah so it's not arbitrary despite the fact that the former lead plaintiff was denied twice by the superior court, the only time he got his permit was when the federal lawsuit hit the 3rd circuit. Now I'm more curious which type of people get permits in NJ apart from security guards and retired law enforcement. Not necessarily names and addresses, but occupations and the justifiable need they used. I suspect this info is as top secret as possible because if it were exposed, this part of the ruling would have not been true at all. btw, if people think this is just bad news for NJ, I should remind people that the 3rd circuit also encompasses Pennsylvania and Delaware. Delaware under Beau Biden is already talking about changing its laws, and PA's AG is trying hard to chip away at concealed carry in the keystone state. With PA becoming more blue by the day, don't be surprised if PA becomes Jersey East in the future. For that reason when I move (in the distant future) I'm thinking of Utah or some other far away state as far away from the cancer as possible.

If you have a permit (or are a LEO covered under LEOSA) in PR you can transport directly from NJ to PR no problems via air travel. Just don't go to any NYC airports because you will likely be arrested.

The MD shooters forum has a nice thread going. There's even an attorney that practices before the circuit courts and SCOTUS in the thread. Worth a read. He has some good opinions and he seems to think that it will either go en banc or SCOTUS. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=126972&page=1 Long and short of it is that Judge Hardiman basically ripped the other judges a new one and opened the door wide for higher scrutiny.

If you actually read the decision and Hardiman's dissent and understood it, they referenced the Illinois case. This is not simply about justifiable need. This is about 2A outside of the home. It may or may not go to SCOTUS.

30 day time out for (mis)using borough owned guns...

Rule #1, if you CCW go out of your way to get out of a situation where you may have to use force. Even if you're an off duty cop.

It's not really a big difference. Read Hardiman's dissent. NJ banned all forms of carry, open or concealed except for a select few. That is an issue. Posner alluded to that similar argument in the 7th circuit (Illinois) case. and 25% is actually better than most cases.

There's still SCOTUS. Don't count it out yet. The 7th circuit decision actually creates a split believe it or not. Volokh gives it 25% chance of getting cert. http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/31/third-circuit-upholds-new-jerseys-highly-restrictive-scheme-for-gun-carry-licenses/