CA an NJ Updates Posting form another site

[Harrys]

Both New Jersey and California DOJ have put out Directives/Legal Alerts instructing the Issuing Authorities in their respective states that the Good Cause no longer applies. That will make it less difficult in these two states but not a walk in the park. Handgunlaw.us believes that the May Issue states will change their statutes/rules removing the Just Cause but they will make it as difficult and Expensive as they can. They will most likely drag their feet in doing so. We also believe they will expand their list of places off limits the same as DC did when they were forced to go Shall Issue.

Link to CA Legal Alert - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf
Link to NJ Directive - https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/...ements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf

You should read all the SCOTUS Opinion. There are some really good things in there about your rights and issuing permits etc. One example at the bottom of Page 36 of SCOTUS Ruling are footnotes (Bold mine) that state the following:
___

9To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554

U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant-well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
____

Stay Safe,
Gary Slider
Co-Owner/Researcher Handgunlaw.us
Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

 

[CaptChaos]

What is a “lengthy wait time?” To me, it’s 90 days. There is no reason why this shouldn’t be approved nearly immediately.

What is “exorbitant fees?” To me we are already there too. Anything north of $10 or so is “exorbitant.” This fee should do nothing but fund whoever is mailing these things. This includes the class fee which is clearly a barrier to many, as evidence in this forum.

 

[Applehd]

There are plenty of States that offer inexpensive permits and quick turnaround times... Pa. is but 1 example. Most States could do the same... but they won't.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Funny how I haven’t heard much discussion about how all this should have produced some sort of new/improved reciprocity space.

 

[BurtonRW]

Funny how I haven’t heard much discussion about how all this should have produced some sort of new/improved reciprocity space.

I think we're just waiting for the "shall-issue" part to settle down in the half dozen jurisdictions affected.

There are a couple of avenues towards reciprocity. Obviously, it won't be voluntary like the driver's license compact, but given that RKBA outside of one's home has now been affirmatively identified as a civil right, it gives rise to the question of whether 1) the states may be required to recognize other states' permits under the full faith & credit clause (which opens a can of worms re: variable training requirements and what a state is allowed to require), or 2) whether states may be required to issue non-resident permits, allowing them to maintain whatever training requirements they can get away with.

IMO, #2 is the more likely scenario for the reasons stated. Easier to force issuance of non-resident permits as a civil rights matter while minimizing the possible arguments from the reluctant states.

-Rob

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

I think we're just waiting for the "shall-issue" part to settle down in the half dozen jurisdictions affected.

There are a couple of avenues towards reciprocity. Obviously, it won't be voluntary like the driver's license compact, but given that RKBA outside of one's home has now been affirmatively identified as a civil right, it gives rise to the question of whether 1) the states may be required to recognize other states' permits under the full faith & credit clause (which opens a can of worms re: variable training requirements and what a state is allowed to require), or 2) whether states may be required to issue non-resident permits, allowing them to maintain whatever training requirements they can get away with.

IMO, #2 is the more likely scenario for the reasons stated. Easier to force issuance of non-resident permits as a civil rights matter while minimizing the possible arguments from the reluctant states.

-Rob

Aye. Thank you for a great/well considered response.

 

[JPG]

There are plenty of States that offer inexpensive permits and quick turnaround times... Pa. is but 1 example. Most States could do the same... but they won't.

In my Wear & Carry renewal class this weekend, they said that VA has about 800,000 permits and Pennsylvania has 1,200,000. They can issue them with little problem MD should be able to. They have about 25,000 permits issued.

They could do walkup service at the MSP Barracks.

 

[delaware_export]

Sounds very likely, especially your thought that point 2 is most likely. At least for the prime offenders. It will let them resist as hard as possible for carry by non residents.

appointments, in person, prior to approval. Say for finger prints. And the other list of things they want to do to make it as cumbersome as possible, short of violating the courts ruling.

I think we're just waiting for the "shall-issue" part to settle down in the half dozen jurisdictions affected.

There are a couple of avenues towards reciprocity. Obviously, it won't be voluntary like the driver's license compact, but given that RKBA outside of one's home has now been affirmatively identified as a civil right, it gives rise to the question of whether 1) the states may be required to recognize other states' permits under the full faith & credit clause (which opens a can of worms re: variable training requirements and what a state is allowed to require), or 2) whether states may be required to issue non-resident permits, allowing them to maintain whatever training requirements they can get away with.

IMO, #2 is the more likely scenario for the reasons stated. Easier to force issuance of non-resident permits as a civil rights matter while minimizing the possible arguments from the reluctant states.

-Rob

 

[Harrys]

It is funny how a hush has fallen over the states that have been affected by SCOTUS decision on 2A. All have released their disotration of lies how this will put more guns on the streets, placing people in danger and more killings. So far the liberals have not stuck their ugly heads out of the graound. They are all involved on the abortion stuff. Which is alot to do about nothing since bortions have not been banned. Even the BLM crews have not been very boistrious. Just to keep people honest about BLM is there has been 38,000 abortions of balck children so basically they did not matter.