the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Trenton NJ, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need in order to get a permit to carry a handgun in public, Acting Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin today announced a directive clarifying requirements for carrying firearms in New Jersey.
Attorney General Directive No. 2022-07 clarifies that while the Supreme Court decision prevents New Jersey from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a handgun in violation of the US Constitution , it does not eliminate the enforcement of other permitting requirements under State law.
“I want to make it perfectly clear that carrying a handgun without a permit is still illegal in New Jersey and applicants must satisfy all other statutory and regulatory requirements – including a thorough background check – before obtaining a permit to carry here,” said Acting Attorney General Platkin. “New Jersey is leading the way by taking commonsense action to protect our residents and law enforcement officers from the daily threat of gun violence – and the Supreme Court decision will not change that.”
The Directive clarifies that in reviewing an individual’s application to carry, law enforcement agencies must continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all requirements under the law, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.
Before issuing a carry permit, law enforcement agencies must continue to:
ensure that an applicant is not subject to any of the disabilities that by law would prevent them from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card;
conduct a background check to confirm that the applicant is qualified to carry a handgun, including by ensuring that the application is, among other things, endorsed by three reputable people who have known the applicant for at least three years and can verify that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior; and
ensure that an applicant has demonstrated that they are thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns.
Now the criminals will have to think twice about harming law abiding citizens.
When FLA passed concealed carry in response to the massive crime wave from the convicts sent here by Castro during the mariel boat lift, crime decreased immediatly.. bc the thugs were concerned granny might be packing heat (since they have no fear of prosecution from liberal DAs)
“…endorsed by three reputable people who have known the applicant for at least three years and can verify that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior.”
__________
This will go away as a separate requirement.
Being a citizen of the U.S., neither incarcerated by New Jersey or FedGov, nor indicted or convicted of relevant criminal offenses, should suffice to demonstrate the absence of bad character. Otherwise the state and local authorities unconstitutionally broad discretion to deny a carry permit.
It’s about time.
Like all other RIGHTS, there should be NO CONDITIONS on this RIGHT (the right to keep and bear arms).
This is not to say that legal restrictions cannot be placed on the exercise of this right similar to the legal restrictions placed on the exercise of the RIGHT of free speech to not use Free Speech to present a clear and present danger (aka falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater).
Note that this restriction – not creating a clear and present danger is NOT a PREREQUISITE that citizens must prove BEFORE being ALLOWED to Exercise their Free Speech RIGHT.
In the same way there should be NO PREREQUISITE on a citizen’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
“Like all other RIGHTS, there should be NO CONDITIONS on this RIGHT (the right to keep and bear arms).”
You spelled “right to a well-regulated militia” wrong.
There is NO RIGHT to a well regulated militia.
There IS a RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.
========================
2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
=========================
The “militia clause” is actually a present participle acting as an adjective which modifies ‘militia.’
What follows is the Subject of the sentence, “the right”, and the verb, “shall”.
The RIGHT is “to keep and bear arms”.
Also, RIGHTS are NOT CREATED by the Constitution. RIGHTS EXIST and are RECOGNIZED as such by the Constitution.
—–
Your grasp of English as well as your understanding of the Constitution is tenuous. I recommend you work to improve your education.
—–
Look at it another way – as a thought experiment, If the 2nd amendment was written as follows to apply to the right to keep and read books, would there be any restrictions on that right that it could only be used in formal schooling settings?
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
The State will do everything possible to make this difficult.
This is a nothing burger. But “the sky is falling” pols sound good. Criminals getting permits. Blood in the street. The wild, wild east. Gunfire at every corner. Panic, locusts, famine…….
The streets will not run with blood any more than they are doing now. And the same folks who are causing this mayhem will continue to cause this, shockingly, because they will not obey the law by getting a permit for which they never will be eligible.
And the root cause of this demand for permits is the fact that those who are supposed to be our protectors are hamstrung and unable to do their jobs with confidence that they will be supported when things do not go smoothly.
What will happen is that you will see an initial run on permits. Then when folks learn about the law and responsibility, the backaches, not being able to dress the way you like, etc., a lot of these folks will no longer carry.
You will end up with a core of people who will go the extra route for training and practice. These folks will not jeopardize their permits by acting irresponsibly. The irresponsible will be culled out early.
So, no. Don’t be disappointed when the predicted problems don’t occur.