NJ Appellate decision on permit to carry
It's In re Pantano. Facts: a police chief issued a permit to a contractor who often has to carry thousands of dollars in cash at night. The State appealed, the trial court barred issuing the permit, and the appellate court upheld this. It notes that the standard for a permit to carry is "justifiable need," but that police regulations construe this as "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life..." Since he hasn't been robbed (yet), he could not issued a permit (even if the police chief approved, as he had).
And now EVERYBODY knows that he:
a) carries a LOT of cash.
b) is definitely NOT armed.
Way to go, NJ "Justice" system!!
Posted by: Hartley at June 30, 2013 08:45 PM
Wow, if I read this right, the state of NJ OVERRODE another LEO as to wether or not a permit was needed? That's AMAZING.
Posted by: Elgee at June 30, 2013 09:32 PM
Is it me, or do their black robes look like "red coats"?
Posted by: 5thofNOV at June 30, 2013 10:12 PM
The pitfalls of a "may issue" system.
Posted by: Harry Shell at July 1, 2013 07:51 AM
It's a problem for rights which are written down explicitly instead of just discovered in a dark area: they only apply on a discretionary basis.
Posted by: William Newman at July 1, 2013 09:11 AM
Several have been denied permits after being attacked. A decision is pending right now in the federal third circuit court brought by a plaintiff that was denied a NJ carry permit after he was kidnapped by a gang and held for several days before escaping.
Posted by: Ryan C at July 1, 2013 02:14 PM
A similar situation obtains in California - "May issue" is determined by the Sheriff of the county in which you live. Unless you're politically connected, you don't get to carry.
When we left California ("may issue") for Georgia ("shall issue"), I breathed a little easier, knowing that if I think it necessary to carry, and I can pass the background check, my permit SHALL be issued.
Posted by: Ward Gerlach at July 1, 2013 04:52 PM
Many times in "may issue" states, the permit is denied even after an attack, as the attack is considered unlikely to recur.
I can't imagine then, what the circumstances would be for issuing a permit? Multiple attacks? An attack that occurs AT the station where the permit application is presented for approval?
Posted by: Windy Wilson at July 1, 2013 05:57 PM
How does this work with Woollard v. Sheridan?
Is it not in the same district or is that case ignored because of a split in district court opinions? (e.g. Kachalsky v. Cacase)?
Posted by: anon at July 1, 2013 07:15 PM
I wonder what caused the state to appeal the LEO's decision.
Posted by: Jeff at July 2, 2013 10:00 AM
Ah another one, sorry mate, rushed calculations the culprit there...
Posted by: GUZMAN at July 2, 2013 04:00 PM
My repeated and never answered question is:
Why are these decisions not appealed with the SCOTUS in mind as the ultimate destination (if necessary)?
I realize there is huge cost involved, but surely the NRA or some other organization would take it on.
Posted by: rspock at July 3, 2013 08:04 AM