New Jersey suit contends "justifiable need" means "all lawful purposes".

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    SNIP What made Cheeseman and Jillard different than the cases that came before him: Drake, Pantano, Peruta, et.al. Cheeseman’s second go at obtaining a permit to carry in the Garden State was not challenging the statute but challenging the definition of justifiable need. In their arguments, the injury claim is one that revolves around the formerly cited Heller case. In Heller, it was stated that when concerning a Constitutional Right, something called interest balancing cannot be done. What does that mean? That means that a right cannot be granted to individuals on a case by case basis. To fulfill the justifiable need statute, the original definition was such that “all lawful purposes” would meet this requirement. Not the case in New Jersey. SNIP OFF

    https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/ch...ail&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-64989da443-21267421
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    But can you imagine how easy it would be for New Jersey to incrementally reduce the number of "lawful purposes" until they approach zero?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I'm not seeing any major differences between this and the Rogers case, other than Cheeseman really didn't even try to distinguish himself from the general population, so really no chance that NJ tries to grant a permit to make the case disappear. Rogers runs an ATM business that requires him to go to high crime areas, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they throw him a permit if it appears Scotus will take the case.
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..
     

    CrueChief

    Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
    Apr 3, 2009
    2,999
    Napolis-ish
    Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..

    I hope that at a certain point this "just issue them a permit to moot the case thing," will stop working at mooting these cases.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..

    They may ask for NJ to do this if Rogers gets cert but in this case NJ would essentially be trashing their own justifiable need standard since the plaintiff didn't make any specialized danger claims. I see ZERO chance NJ ends justifiable need for Herr Frosh's sake.
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    In Heller, it was stated that when concerning a Constitutional Right, something called interest balancing cannot be done. What does that mean? That means that a right cannot be granted to individuals on a case by case basis. To fulfill the justifiable need statute, the original definition was such that “all lawful purposes” would meet this requirement.

    With NYSRPA going sideways, a replacement is needed. Something that leads to the recognition of a general Constitutional principle not restricted in applicability to guns alone (i.e., "You now can carry your gun outside the home"). The more blanketing the principle, the better.

    These two points in Cheeseman seem promising:
    1: A constitutional right cannot be granted on a case by case basis, and
    2: "All lawful purposes" would meet this requirement.

    If SCOTUS does not take Cheeseman, it leaves the implication that the right to report news, or to not quarter soldiers in your home, exists only on a case by case basis.
     
    Last edited:

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,230
    Montgomery County
    2: "All lawful purposes" would meet this requirement.

    I've always felt - probably for the wrong reasons - queasy about that phrase. So, the court strikes down anything that capriciously prevents you from being issued a carry permit because "all lawful purposes" is a good enough reason. But then isn't the landscape wide open for them (the infringement-minded state) to simply work instead to reduce the spectrum of "lawful purposes?"

    Meaning, "OK fine, here's your permit. But there are now no longer any lawful purposes for you to carry, since we've made carrying in public illegal wherever there is a gathering of more than two people within ten miles or any vendor of alcoholic beverages within a given county. Enjoy your permit, sucker!"
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I've always felt - probably for the wrong reasons - queasy about that phrase. So, the court strikes down anything that capriciously prevents you from being issued a carry permit because "all lawful purposes" is a good enough reason. But then isn't the landscape wide open for them (the infringement-minded state) to simply work instead to reduce the spectrum of "lawful purposes?"

    Meaning, "OK fine, here's your permit. But there are now no longer any lawful purposes for you to carry, since we've made carrying in public illegal wherever there is a gathering of more than two people within ten miles or any vendor of alcoholic beverages within a given county. Enjoy your permit, sucker!"

    Certainly possible, although NJ's off-limits places for permit holders hasn't changed much in decades. If forced to go shall-issue and all of a sudden they do this, it'll be pretty obvious.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,353
    SoMD / West PA
    Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..

    After the shennanigans in the last NJ case, Drake IIRC, the court may not allow NJ to play games this time around.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV

    A very good read, excellent analysis on NJ law and overall where we are as far as public carry. Also it gets into why the NJ law is the one for SCOTUS to take as opposed to NY and CA:

    The issue of concealment has the potential to result
    in a divided ruling by this Court. One or more members
    of the Court might agree with the analysis of the Ninth
    and Tenth Circuits in Peruta and Peterson and find
    that, other issues aside, there is no degree of protection
    for carry in a concealed manner. Thus, if a State has
    mandated concealed carry to the exclusion of open
    carry, the result could be a fractured ruling without a
    clear majority opinion.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    It shall be very interesting to see what SCOTUS will do with these certs when they return from summer break. I bet RGB is writing a dissent right now if SCOTUS does rule their is a right to carry outside the home and you do not need to show a G&S reason to do so.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,421
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom