On January 26, the New Jersey Attorney General responded to the recently-filed lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s extreme and subjective handgun carry laws. The legal brief included both a vigorous defense of those laws and a motion to dismiss (i.e., end) the case. The Attorney General is also seeking to drop plaintiffs ANJRPC and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) from the case.
The Attorney General’s brief included the following statements:
New Jersey’s carefully conceived and long-standing regulatory scheme is rooted in an appreciation that a permit to carry may not afford any measure of self-protection to a particular applicant and would instead increase the risk of the applicant being involved in "the known and serious dangers of misuse and accidental use.” When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.
New Jersey has not merely a significant interest but a compelling interest in combating handgun violence and combating the dangers and risks associated with the accidental and misuse of handguns, which are inherent in carrying a handgun. It also has a compelling interest in reducing the use of handguns in crimes. A government’s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry. When handguns are permitted to be carried beyond one’s home, the dangers and risks necessarily increase and are borne by the public.
Generally speaking, one cannot know whether crime against an individual will occur at all, much less know when, where, or how. Neither then can one know whether a handgun would provide an effective measure of self-defense and be safe to use as to other victims or bystanders. Further, the "need” for a handgun for self-defense outside of the home does not stand alone. The carrying of a handgun inherently comes with the dangers and risks of its misuse or accidental use. These dangers and risks are borne by everyone with whom the person encounters.
The full text of the Attorney General’s brief can be found here
Link Removed
This historic lawsuit, brought in November, 2010 by ANJRPC, SAF and six private citizens, challenges the constitutionality of New Jersey’s "justifiable need” standard for issuance of handgun carry permits – a nearly impossible standard to meet that has all but eliminated the right of self defense with a firearm in the Garden State.
"We are disappointed but not surprised by the State’s response to our lawsuit,” said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. "The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home has long been disparaged in the Garden State, and if necessary we are prepared to take this lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to change that,” said Bach.
40 states currently have laws recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self defense. Despite the mountain of evidence showing that sustained reductions in violent crime rates result after enactment of these laws, New Jersey has refused to modernize its own laws, instead choosing to imperil its citizens and force them to remain defenseless victims against armed criminals who don’t follow the law.
The next step in the case is for ANJRPC, SAF and the individual plaintiffs to respond to the Attorney General, which is scheduled to occur in mid-February. Given the brisk pace at which the case is moving, there could be a decision by the lower court as early as this Spring. Regardless of the decision, appeals are anticipated.
The Attorney General’s brief included the following statements:
New Jersey’s carefully conceived and long-standing regulatory scheme is rooted in an appreciation that a permit to carry may not afford any measure of self-protection to a particular applicant and would instead increase the risk of the applicant being involved in "the known and serious dangers of misuse and accidental use.” When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.
New Jersey has not merely a significant interest but a compelling interest in combating handgun violence and combating the dangers and risks associated with the accidental and misuse of handguns, which are inherent in carrying a handgun. It also has a compelling interest in reducing the use of handguns in crimes. A government’s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry. When handguns are permitted to be carried beyond one’s home, the dangers and risks necessarily increase and are borne by the public.
Generally speaking, one cannot know whether crime against an individual will occur at all, much less know when, where, or how. Neither then can one know whether a handgun would provide an effective measure of self-defense and be safe to use as to other victims or bystanders. Further, the "need” for a handgun for self-defense outside of the home does not stand alone. The carrying of a handgun inherently comes with the dangers and risks of its misuse or accidental use. These dangers and risks are borne by everyone with whom the person encounters.
The full text of the Attorney General’s brief can be found here
Link Removed
This historic lawsuit, brought in November, 2010 by ANJRPC, SAF and six private citizens, challenges the constitutionality of New Jersey’s "justifiable need” standard for issuance of handgun carry permits – a nearly impossible standard to meet that has all but eliminated the right of self defense with a firearm in the Garden State.
"We are disappointed but not surprised by the State’s response to our lawsuit,” said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. "The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home has long been disparaged in the Garden State, and if necessary we are prepared to take this lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to change that,” said Bach.
40 states currently have laws recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self defense. Despite the mountain of evidence showing that sustained reductions in violent crime rates result after enactment of these laws, New Jersey has refused to modernize its own laws, instead choosing to imperil its citizens and force them to remain defenseless victims against armed criminals who don’t follow the law.
The next step in the case is for ANJRPC, SAF and the individual plaintiffs to respond to the Attorney General, which is scheduled to occur in mid-February. Given the brisk pace at which the case is moving, there could be a decision by the lower court as early as this Spring. Regardless of the decision, appeals are anticipated.
Last edited by a moderator:
