« NY, other states sue US over printable guns | Main | Facebook making millions off a gun permit scam »
NJ Supremes rule that a permit applicant is entitled to a judicial hearing
The case is In re Carlstrom, handled by Ev Nappen. It's a good illustration of how arbitrary permit schemes can be.
The applicant is a security guard, assigned to AMC Theaters. He submitted an application for a carry permit, with "three endorsements to his good character and behavior, certificates indicating the completion of several firearms training and safety courses, the employment application for his security guard position, and a certified letter of need from the director of operations at Global Security Services," which noted that he had to protect large amounts of cash and "movie theatres have been included in Homeland Security documents and press releases as "soft targets" for terrorism and have been in the news on several occasions recently for episodes of firearms- related violence, necessitating an armed presence."
His police chief approved the application, but the trial court (which issues the permits) rejected that, finding that the NJ law requires proof of an "urgent necessity for protection of self or others" and he had not specified any previous threats or attacks. (I suspect the trial court is itself guarded by armed guards, who have shown no attacks previous to being put on duty). After a four-year fight in the courts, he finally gets a ruling -- that he was entitled to a hearing before the court denied him, case sent back for that hearing.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Apparently "may issue" means no and hell no.
I'd love to see a search of those granted permits in NJ comparing names with lists of the friends, family, and campaign donors for any politicians or judges. Might as well check for celebrities and multi-millionaires as well.
It turned up some interesting things when done in Sacramento county where the CA state capital is located.
"proof of an ‘urgent necessity for protection of self or others‘ "
This is constitutional?
The permit will be denied at the hearing.
Questions that will be asked by the court:
1) After 4 years, do you still work at Global Security Services? No? You have no need -- Permit denied
2) Are you still assigned to AMC theaters? No? You have no need -- Permit denied
3) After 4 years, is the same police chief there? No? Your application needs to be approved by the current police chief -- Permit Denied.
4) After 4 years, have you gotten divorced, gotten arrested, had any traffic tickets, had any parking tickets, had any library book fines? Yes? You no longer have good character and behavior, Permit Denied.
Etc. The court will find a reason to deny.