START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
2,040,783 people care about Politics

New Jersey Allowed to Require “Justifiable Need” to Carry a Firearm in Public

New Jersey Allowed to Require “Justifiable Need” to Carry a Firearm in Public

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms in self defense, guns rights advocates, led by the NRA, have challenged laws that have put restrictions on carrying guns in public. Their argument has been that these restrictions prevent them from protecting themselves in public. Many of these challenges have failed, with lower courts ruling that restrictions are in line with the ruling of District of Columbia v Heller, which said that handguns in the home were permissible for self defense.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: ”Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The opinion even pointed out that laws banning concealed carry were permissible.

New Jersey’s law is very strict and make it all but impossible for anyone not a member of law enforcement to carry a gun in public. It requires gun owners to indicate “specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by other means” in order to get an open carry permit. Approval must be granted by the local police and a Superior Court judge.

The “justifiable need” requirement survived two lower court challenges, which were upheld in 2012 by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court ruling. This week, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, leaving in place the 3rd Circuit’s ruling and New Jersey’s law.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court has refused to hear such a challenge.  However, there is still a possibility they will have to weigh in on the issue.

In February of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar 2012 law in San Diego County, California was unconstitutional. In that law, gun owners had to show “good cause” to carry a firearm in public.  This meant that permit applicants has to show a clear and present danger to their person or family and that carrying a concealed weapon would mitigate that danger. Reasons would include situations where documented threats have occurred or for people who work in situations that they may find themselves threatened, such as carrying large sums of money as part of their job. Exercising your “Second Amendment right” isn’t considered good cause for a concealed permit, and you are allowed to protect yourself in your home, on private property, or as the owner of a business without one.

In a 2-1 decision, the three judge panel ruled that the “Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” By limiting the situations in which a good cause would be applicable, the judges determined that “the ‘typical’ responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense.”  This is in direct conflict of other rulings across the country.

California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris said the state will challenge the ruling as the counties in the suit have said they will not take further action. Harris filed a motion to intervene with the Ninth Circuit to review and reverse the decision, which, if accepted, would result in a full review of a nine judge panel. In light of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the challenge to the New Jersey law, if the court refuses to reverse the ruling, it could lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court once again.

Read more: , , , , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
3:31PM PDT on Aug 25, 2014

Every woman and handicapped individual should be assigned (and educated on use of) a gun to keep on their person for protection from stronger persons.

7:13AM PDT on Jul 28, 2014

Before long, we are going to regress back to the old west where everyone carried a gun and could shoot who ever they wanted.

10:04AM PDT on May 17, 2014

Guess Florida is not the only insane place .

8:37PM PDT on May 14, 2014

You're saying you want to quote crime stats of Asheville NC, Winston-Salem NC, and NYC?

6:24AM PDT on May 14, 2014

All of you saying that the 2nd amendment was written by people who were afraid of a tyrannical government are correct, up to a point, but you conveniently forget that those same men changed their minds. The 2nd was written to make national defense the responsibility of the states, and to make every adult male a citizen soldier, as the framers feared that a standing army might be used against the people. Then the War of 1812 happened, and they got to test their theory in practice and found it lacking. We've had a professional, standing army ever since. There was talk of repealing the 2nd at the time, but the slave states needed armed patrols to hunt down runaways and quash rebellions, so it didn't happen. You can thank slavery for your precious 2nd amendment, not the framers.

Brandon: NYC is a lot safer than your town, thanks to those 'nutty' laws. The criminals are afraid to carry, because if they get caught with a gun, they go straight to jail. No trial, no get out of jail free card, no $200.

2:10AM PDT on May 14, 2014

thank you for sharing

9:03PM PDT on May 13, 2014

@ Barbara- If my 2nd Amendment Rights should be restricted to Muskets, then your 1st Amendment Rights should be restricted to the Pen and Quill.

8:42PM PDT on May 13, 2014

And I thought Florida was nuts.

6:55PM PDT on May 13, 2014

Actually that's a good question, Eric. How many nations *did* go "soft" over the generations like you say? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. Do you have examples?

I can think of some short term evasion of war, in France after WW II and before WW II, but that's not generational. Also they did prepare for war, just in the wrong way with fixed fortifications, because culturally they didn't want to deal with the possibility of war. The Maginot Line was supposed to magically solve everything, and frankly it did perform as built. The Germans just went around it!

6:24PM PDT on May 13, 2014

@William So in your view the USA was founded by a bunch of nutcases whom believed in individual liberty and the right to protect that liberty. Well there are plenty of 'civilized' nations for people like you to move to.

We must learn from the past so as not to repeat it. How many once great nations have fallen due to their citizens growing soft over the generations not understanding the struggles their fore fathers and mothers went though?

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

@Susie R.~~"Are there any politicians out there who would actually be principled enough to stand up to…

Sound article, another one recognising the links between weight & mental health....something the…

meet our writers

Lindsay Spangler Lindsay Spangler is a Web Editor and Producer for Care2 Causes. A recent UCLA graduate, she lives in... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!