NJ Blinks, When Will MD?

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!
  • DaveP

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    654
    St. Marys county
    NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
    ISSUES DIRECTIVE REQUIRING
    CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
    TO BE PROCESSED WITHOUT
    "JUSTIFIABLE NEED"

    June 24, 2022. At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed WITHOUT an applicant having to prove "justifiable need."
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,919
    WV
    And so did CA...https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540501223543021576%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

    I'm wondering though since the MSP issues the permits (and they would be the ones sued) that they may unilaterally decide to drop good cause and not wait on Frosh and MGA to tell them to?
     

    w2kbr

    MSI EM, NRA LM, SAF, AAFG
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,137
    Severn 21144
    IMHO: Maryland will never "blink" or "fold". They will continue to fight until forced
    to concede the issue. Think FROSH!!!
     

    Worsley

    I apologize for hurting your feelings!
    Jan 5, 2022
    2,861
    Westminster
    If you Riot, burn down police precincts and businesses until you get your way works and as an added bonus you’ll never be prosecuted.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,187
    Anne Arundel County
    And so did CA...https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540501223543021576%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

    I'm wondering though since the MSP issues the permits (and they would be the ones sued) that they may unilaterally decide to drop good cause and not wait on Frosh and MGA to tell them to?
    MSP acts based on MDAG's legal advice. I doubt they'd get ahead of the AG's Office on a matter of legal compliance.
     
    Last edited:

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,600
    SoMD / West PA
    IMHO: Maryland will never "blink" or "fold". They will continue to fight until forced
    to concede the issue. Think FROSH!!!
    Hopefully, Frosh will be forced to write that letter, after making a career of being anti-2A.

    Sweet justice!
     

    scottyfz6

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 22, 2018
    1,380
    MSP acts based on MDAG's legal advice. I doubt they'd get ahead of the AG's Office on a matter of legal compliance.


    I have spoken to Mark Bowen a few times, he is the ag assigned at the lic div. He is a nice guy and very reasonable. I have thought about contacting him, but I am sure he is way over his head in work right now.

    So it is not like there is some huge disconnect from the ag office to the state police.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,974
    Fulton, MD
    If you Riot, burn down police precincts and businesses until you get your way works and as an added bonus you’ll never be prosecuted.

    But only rioting for liberal causes.

    Try all that for gun rights and find out how quickly you're face down, cuffed, with guns pointed at your head.
     

    chilipeppermaniac

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter

    The law at issue said, however, that permits could be granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need — a requirement that went beyond a general desire for self-protection.

    Gun owners in the state sued, contending that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get the necessary license. They argued that the law turned the Second Amendment into a limited privilege, not a constitutional right.

    The court agreed with the challengers and struck down the heightened requirement, but it left the door open to allowing states to impose limits on the carrying of guns.

    "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

    In the ruling’s most far-reaching language, Thomas said concern for public safety isn’t enough to justify new gun controls.

    “The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote.
    New York's law was "problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense" — in effect, denying citizens the right to carry a gun to protect themselves, he wrote.

    In a dissent joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, Buffalo, New York, and elsewhere, saying it is "often necessary" for the court to consider gun violence in deciding Second Amendment issues.
     
    Last edited:

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,613
    Messages
    7,288,494
    Members
    33,489
    Latest member
    Nelsonbencasey

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom