Here we go again (or still). From the Table of Contents (I haven't even gotten to ther meat yet: "
Heller Only Recognized a Right to Bear Arms for Self-Defense in the Home."
Quote:
|
Applicants for a permit to carry a handgun must demonstrate that they: (1) are not disqualified by a disability enumerated in N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-3(c), (2) are thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and (3) have a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4c. The justifiable need requirement must be considered on a case-by-case basis. In re Borinsky, 830 A.2d 507, 516 (N.J. Super. Ct. App Div. 2003). Justifiable need means the “urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.” N.J. Admin. Code § 13:54-2.4(d)(1) (2012); see also In re Preis, 573 A.2d at 152 (citing Siccardi v. State, 284 A.2d 533, 540 (N.J. 1971)).
|
Which lawyer was it in which case who made the point that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs?
The attorneys for the state are arguing that "reasonable regulation" means preventing 95 percent of the population from being "allowed" to exercise a right that the Constitution guarantees. Many other states have determined that "regulation" means the state can impose certain restrictions on the mode of carry, but cannot deprive the individual of the exercise of the right in its entirety. But that's what NJ does.
Quote:
|
Longstanding regulatory measures like New Jersey’s are presumptively lawful and outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
|
I don't think so.