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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« 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

Posted by David Hardy · 28 January 2020 08:52 PM

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

larry | January 29, 2020 7:54 PM | Reply

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.

Anonymous | January 29, 2020 8:21 PM | Reply

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.

SgtDad | February 1, 2020 2:21 PM | Reply

"proof of an ‘urgent necessity for protection of self or others‘ "

This is constitutional?

Leave a comment