Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Good news | Main | British couple freaks over ammunition »

NJ Appellate decision on permit to carry

Posted by David Hardy · 30 June 2013 02:23 PM

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).

· State legislation

12 Comments | Leave a comment

Hartley | June 30, 2013 8:45 PM | Reply

And now EVERYBODY knows that he:
a) carries a LOT of cash.
b) is definitely NOT armed.

Way to go, NJ "Justice" system!!

Elgee | June 30, 2013 9:32 PM | Reply

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.

5thofNOV | June 30, 2013 10:12 PM | Reply

Is it me, or do their black robes look like "red coats"?

Harry Shell | July 1, 2013 7:51 AM | Reply

The pitfalls of a "may issue" system.

William Newman | July 1, 2013 9:11 AM | Reply

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.

Ryan C | July 1, 2013 2:14 PM | Reply

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.

Ward Gerlach | July 1, 2013 4:52 PM | Reply

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.

Windy Wilson | July 1, 2013 5:57 PM | Reply

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?

anon | July 1, 2013 7:15 PM | Reply

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)?

Jeff | July 2, 2013 10:00 AM | Reply

I wonder what caused the state to appeal the LEO's decision.

GUZMAN | July 2, 2013 4:00 PM | Reply

Ah another one, sorry mate, rushed calculations the culprit there...

rspock | July 3, 2013 8:04 AM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment