A small local paper (The Hopewell Sun) ran an editorial titled: Is there a "justifiable need?"

 

I leave it to your imagination the conclusion they reached, below is my response. Enjoy.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Re: Your editorial, “Is there a ‘justifiable need?’”

 

I find it truly laughable how hoplophobes tend to pick and choose only those tidbits that support their position, whether they are valid or not.

 

You throw up the old smoke screen of the second amendment being a collective right (militia) as opposed to an individual right (the people). An old argument that was finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court’s Heller decision – but never mind, that doesn’t support your position.

 

You then go on to tout the finding of the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Drake v. Filko) upholding New Jersey’s “justifiable need” requirement for the issuance of a license to carry a firearm. Your whole editorial makes this sound like a finite ruling, rather than the one small step that it is, on the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. This totally ignores the findings of the other appeals court circuits, some of which agree with the third circuit and some that do not, and those of which there is yet to be a ruling.

 

You follow this up by trotting out, essentially, what is the old “blood in the streets” argument by stating the decision was appropriate due to our dense population and the violence prevalent in such areas as Camden. Your inference that additional violence would be visited upon the population by law abiding, licensed civilians carrying firearms I find personally insulting and it flies in the face of dynamic evidence garnered from the 40 or so states that allow their citizens a right to self-defense, without showing a “justifiable need.” What if you needed to show a “justifiable need” to exercise your right of free speech or religion?

 

The Drake v. Filko decision was nothing more than judicial activism, an opinion that is apparently held by Judge Hardiman, the author of the dissenting opinion. Judge Hardiman states, “Because I am convinced that New Jersey's justifiable need requirement unconstitutionally burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted in Heller and McDonald, I respectfully dissent.”

 

Finally, I leave you with this thought: Your trepidation of walking among a populous that has been fully vetted and is licensed to carry a firearm is counterintuitive. Your trepidation should be reserved for the situation as it now exists – you walk among a population of armed citizens already, those citizens with total disdain for the law. Isn’t it time to level the playing field?

 

 

NICE!  Now let's see what the Princeton snobs have to say about rational thinking.

 

They walk among us and they vote....and that's why it's as bad as it is NOW!

A yes, the old "population density" canard.

 

Well, bullets don't have an effective range of the 30-50 mile width of New Jersey. Their danger is fairly local, usually measured in feet or yards in a self defense situation or even a criminal attack.

 

And there is no place in Jersey with a high population density that is any different than dozens of places I can name where people lawfully carry firearms for self defense and it causes ZERO problems. Including Camden or any other shitty Jersey city you can name.

Bob,

I give you a lot of credit for responding, so clearly and eloquently, to a local paper in Rush Holt country. Except for stalwarts such as yourself, Hopewell seems to be overrun with Princeton wannabes now. My son lives on the Ewing/Hopewell border and gets the paper you referenced. I read the editorial and realize that some are so isolated, that they are completely unaware of reality. Thanks again for your response.

nice!

Well written, sir!

What if you needed to show a “justifiable need” to exercise your right of free speech or religion?

That's the first thought that I had after reading the piece. (I won't go into my arguements on those subjects here.) Thank you, Bob, for such a great response. Too bad we won't ever see it printed in that publication.

Bob

 

All I can say is Well Done!

 

My reposnse to anyone who uses the "density" statement in defense of denying law abiding citizens their 2A right is "cities like Houston, Tampa, Miami, Dallas, or Salt Lake City or no less densley populated than any part of New Jersey, yet there are no repoted cases of people being injured by law abiding citizens legally carrying fireams."

 

I have made that statement 3 times to anti's and stopped each of them dead in the debate.

 

I have also mentioned it in every letter I send to the Governer.

 

 

 

 

You follow this up by trotting out, essentially, what is the old “blood in the streets” argument by stating the decision was appropriate due to our dense population and the violence prevalent in such areas as Camden.

Well said!

A yes, the old "population density" canard.

 

Well, bullets don't have an effective range of the 30-50 mile width of New Jersey. Their danger is fairly local, usually measured in feet or yards in a self defense situation or even a criminal attack.

 

And there is no place in Jersey with a high population density that is any different than dozens of places I can name where people lawfully carry firearms for self defense and it causes ZERO problems. Including Camden or any other shitty Jersey city you can name.

 

I hear you. Phoenix is the sixth most densely populated city in the U.S., and lots of people have guns there.

Excellent write up sir.

 

FYI. From what I can count, there are 44 States that are "Shall Issue" and/or "Constitutional Carry" . Sounds better that there are only 6 States than 10 States that infringe on your rights.

In reality, there are 4 states where an ordinary citizen cannot carry: NJ, MD*, IL, and HI.

 

And IL just left town. That leaves 3.

 

*MD is not quite as bad as NJ or HI. People can come up with an excuse to carry, but it aint easy. Also, we all know that CA and NY have a few counties that are tough and RI often prefers to issue local permits.

Well done Bob!  Might I suggest that you also rewrite it as a letter to the editor justifying why we should have CCW in NJ and send it to other papers perhaps including the WSJ and NYT.

I second Howard. A fine and concise example of "common sense" reasons of supporting gun rights.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist using my favorite gun law phrase. Common sense, lol. If politicians had any we wouldn't be having these issues.

You just derailed their train of thought.... OH CRAP those gun nuts aren't all nuts... soon they will realize that there are educated smart and organized people in the fight.. I salute you Pizza Bob!  Very good job!

Thank you, Bob, for such a great response. Too bad we won't ever see it printed in that publication.

Today I eat my words and tip my hat. Bob's response was published in the August 21-27, 2013 issue of the publication. Well done, sir! Well done!

Well written and good for you for helping get the word out.  The last paragraph is the best in my opinion.

 

Your trepidation of walking among a populous that has been fully vetted and is licensed to carry a firearm is counterintuitive. Your trepidation should be reserved for the situation as it now exists – you walk among a population of armed citizens already, those citizens with total disdain for the law. Isn’t it time to level the playing field?

 

 

You'll never convince someone that is truly anti gun, their position is based on emotion (usually fear of the unknown)  not fact so facts won't sway them.  But there are lots of people that lean anti simply because they have never been exposed to the other side and you've helped them to consider another side. 

 

Thanks for doing this.

Very well written! My hat is off to you. We need more well written articles Thanks, Bob.

Awesome it got published. You definitely influenced some people.

I concur - very well-written, and your last paragraph (we are ALREADY walking among the armed,,,armed criminals) captures the REAL point perfectly!