Should be reason enough.
Posted on 08/03/2013 2:24:42 PM PDT by xzins
New Jersey's law requiring residents show a “justifiable need” to get a permit to carry a handgun in public was upheld by a federal appeals court.
A mandate that residents demonstrate an “urgent necessity for self-protection” to get authorization to publicly carry a handgun doesn’t run afoul of U.S. constitutional protections of the right to bear firearms, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Wednesday.
“The justifiable need standard is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality,” the panel wrote.
The ruling comes more than four months after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a similar Second Amendment challenge to New York state’s requirement that people wishing to carry a handgun in public show a special need for protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Living in NJ should be justifiable need enough.
Yes, Massa.
Should be reason enough.
Because Jersey, like every other state has “teens” that are looking for trouble?
Screw the law, carry anyway. I do, WITHOUT their permission and not paying a dime.
My right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That’s the only need I need to justify.
This is an utterly stupid (but predictable) decision. The vague “justifiable need” requirement simply abolishes a right honored in most states. It is also a devious and dishonest policy.
In order to qualify, one must in essence present foreknowledge of an attack (perhaps a notarized statement from the prospective perpetrator), allowing the required 60 days to issue the permit. It is almost never done in NJ. Or one could simply show up dead: that might be accepted as justifiable need.
I wonder who the brainless judges were on the appeals court this time. Maybe they will be overruled.
Time to move to some other state.
As opposed to the EXPLICIT constitutionality of "shall not be infringed."
Here we go again. Idiot judges. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they understand?
Time to start kicking this up the judicial ladder. Somebody up there has a brain in his head.
Just another reason why I have no intention of setting foot in NJ or willingly supporting any of their businesses.
Already been done. From the article:
"The ruling comes more than four months after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a similar Second Amendment challenge to New York state’s requirement that people wishing to carry a handgun in public show a special need for protection."
umbras and penumbras. Ay carumba!
The “justifiable need” is that there is no justification needed.
The 2nd amendment is reason enough you Marxist bass turds.
Presumptive constitutionality means they disagree with the Supreme Court decisions certifying the right to keep and bear arms, but don’t have the guts to say they’re just throwing this case at the system to see if it clogs up the works.
They know they’ve lost on the rulings in these matters.
Thanks for the clarification.
What, the non-assistance of LEOs on the subway recently and the obvious need to provide your own protection needs an even more glaring example of “need”?
And so the downfall of the United States continues.
Don’t worry about it. Just claim you’re a street gang member and you don’t need no stinkin’ license.
What the heck is “presumptive constitutionality”?
This federal judge needs to go.
Because the police have repeatedly gone to court to prove that they have no responsibility to protect the public from harm.
Self-defense is a basic human right.
Blatantly unconstitutional.
If I recall constitutional attorney and author Randy Barnett correctly, it means that courts assume laws are constitutional. It is up to the plaintiff to prove otherwise.
Barnett has argued from the 9th Amendment, that in our republic, which was created by the people themselves, the proper judicial approach is to assume all laws are unconstitutional and make the government prove otherwise.
He calls it the "presumption of liberty" approach. It is the only fitting way to adjudicate our laws.
Thanks. I concur with your last sentence.
Yep, totally. I can’t believe the windbag governor is contemplating a run for president as a republican.
Check it out...
hope the link works...
The justifiable need standard is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality,” the panel wrote.
What a pantload.
Presumed by who? It flies directly in the face of the 2nd amendment and cannot not possibly be constitutional.
So I can go buy some slaves because there were longstanding regulations saying it was ok? /s
The only one presuming it are liberal judges.
Barnett has argued from the 9th Amendment, that in our republic, which was created by the people themselves, the proper judicial approach is to assume all laws are unconstitutional and make the government prove otherwise.
He calls it the "presumption of liberty" approach. It is the only fitting way to adjudicate our laws.
Thank you, Jacquerie. After we restore our lost Constitution, I believe we'll have to incorporate the presumption of liberty into an amendment.
“The justifiable need standard is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality,” the panel wrote.
HUH? the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.......
Maybe the Federal Judges can not read English............
Maybe they are just asshats...
The second maybe. :>)
Agree. Our blanket Ninth Amendment protections should be front and center.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
4 judges appointed by Clinton. 5 by W. Bush. 3 by Obama.
Importantly, 2 seats are vacant. Their oldest senior judge is 93, and was appointed by LBJ. 2 others were appointed by Richard Nixon.
The 3 judge panel was led by the 93 year old (LBJ) Ruggero J. Aldisert, who supported the law, as well as a “designated judge” Leonard P. Stark (44 years old Obama appointee), a district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Dissenting was Thomas Hardiman (48 years old), a W. Bush appointee.
Here is a .pdf of their decision:
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121150p.pdf
The need to uphold the US Constitution.
And the thugs dont!
I left New Yuterus (New York) for this reason.
I see the Philly clown judge have ignored the Supreme Court.
judge = judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.