http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html

 

Of particular interest is the "carry" aspect.

 

Does NOT go even remotely far enough. Gesturing to prevent wholesale possible future SCOTUS smack downs?

 

Dont know about any of you. But I am SICK and TIRED of "baby steps". SICK AND TIRED.

http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/81153-its-legal-to-pickup-friends-and-go-to-the-bathroom/

http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html

 

Of particular interest is the "carry" aspect.

 

Does NOT go even remotely far enough. Gesturing to prevent wholesale possible future SCOTUS smack downs?

 

Dont know about any of you. But I am SICK and TIRED of "baby steps". SICK AND TIRED.

I agree, people are applauding this and I am just shrugging my shoulders. Justifiable needs is something that needs to be removed totally. Needing to justify something is equal to infringing upon the person's rights. Infringing does not limit to preventing. But, it is also undermines and restricts it. My justifiable needs is simple; it is in the constitution. 

Don't anyone take this wrong. My option is 2A in using the word bare means just what it says "to bare" keep on ones person! Carry! But the bottom line is 1) NJ is a may issue state (no issue in reality as we all know). 2) SCOTUS even before its tragic loss never ruled on weather carry outside the home was covered by 2A and seems to me every time a case comes up in it's regard instead of offending one side or the other they simply refuse to hear it.

As negligent as this is, it's still "the way it is". And the lawyers that the left NJ legislature use, look into it very carefully to word their anti-gun statutes to not be so blatant to force the top court to take the case. 

 

 

Just thinking as I read thru this memo

 

The regulation adds "serious threats" to the circumstances that could demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life - including evidence of serious threats that are not directed specifically at an individual but which establish more than mere generalized fears or concerns - that a private citizen may specify in a written certification of justifiable need submitted with an application for a permit to carry a handgun.

 

So if while having a heated argument with my wife, she hurls a coffee cup across the room at my head. I call the cops, she admits to doing it (on the grounds that I'm an A hole and a pig, which I plea no contest to). Gets arrested for domestic violence.

In NJ this is "serious" enough to have her right to own a firearm revoked for life. So if this was serious enough to revolt a right written in "The Bill Of Rights" for life, why would it not be a serious enough threat for a CCW approval?

I know its ridicules to think this would happen in NJ but when you look at it like it is, cause and effect. There's no reason why its not 100% legitimate.

The local liquor store has their money picked up by aremd guards. You could be assaulted outside of the store. Guess which scenario has a chace to win?