NJ will not allow you to carry unless you show a “justifiable need” for a gun. The man in this case carried large sums of money and was previously subject to robbery attempts. But he was denied a permit, that was not considered “justifiable need”.
The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to wade into the escalating legal brawl over whether people have a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside of the home, as gun rights advocates push the high court to settle how far the Second Amendment goes in protecting the right to bear arms.
Justices will meet in private conference to weigh whether to hear a challenge to New Jersey’s mandate that citizens must show a “justifiable need” to carry a gun in public for protection.
Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, which has filed an amicus brief in the case, want the high court to strike down the law and go a step further by clarifying how far the Second Amendment goes in establishing an individual’s right to carry a firearm outside the home.
In addition to the unconstitutionality of requiring a “justifiable need” to carry a gun, New Jersey officials have actually carried it a step further in this case than their own law would suggest. According to News 12, the officials actually said Mr. Drake, the plaintiff, didn’t have a justifiable need because he had other options, such as hiring an armored car to pick up the money at the ATMs, rather than go himself.
So “justifiable need” suddenly becomes “if that is your only option”, as decided by the State.
The decision as to who qualifies is thus wholly within the determination of the State.
If that is not patently unconstitutional, what is?