Plus Several Other Right to Carry Updates!
Wednesday February 22, 2017
ANJRPC WEIGHS IN ON PERUTA V. SAN DIEGO
ANJRPC has joined a friend of the court brief among several state firearms organizations in the next major right to carry case in line for possible consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, Peruta v. San Diego. The brief supports the petition urging the Supreme Court to take up the case.
The Peruta case involves a challenge to San Diego County’s requirement that carry permit applicants demonstrate “good cause” before a carry permit will be issued, similar to New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard. The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
“The right to bear arms necessarily includes self-defense with a firearm outside the home, no matter how brazenly the Ninth Circuit tries to re-write the Constitution” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “For many years, ANJRPC has led the fight to restore right to carry in New Jersey and we will spare no effort or expense to do so.”
ANJRPC was a plaintiff in Drake v. Jerejian, one of the most well-crafted right to carry challenges in the U.S., which the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear in 2014 after postponing its decision on whether to take up the case for several months.
Joining ANJRPC in this latest effort are gun rights organizations in the anti-gun states of New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland.
NJ RESIDENTS NO LONGER NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY IN NH!
Following ANJRPC’s major victory last year striking down New Hampshire’s requirement that non-resident carry permit applicants must have a carry permit from their home state, today the State of New Hampshire enacted SB12, full “constitutional carry,” enabling concealed carry without a permit by both residents and non-residents alike!
Although a permit is no longer required, it is anticipated that permits will still be available for those who desire them.
Since ANJRPC’s 2016 victory in Bach v. New Hampshire, ANJRPC has been working with New Hampshire authorities to establish application procedures that comply with the State Supreme court decision, to ensure that New Jerseyans and residents of other anti-gun states would be able to qualify for the non-resident permit.
However, when we learned that SB12 was likely to be enacted and sweepingly change the law, we delayed the discussion so that procedures could be crafted to conform with SB12 rather than the old law. For those who still desire to obtain a New Hampshire non-resident carry permit, ANJRPC is now working to establish clear, proper procedures under the new law. We will provide further updates as that process unfolds.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY RECIPROCITY
There has been great excitement and anticipation among gun owners over H.R. 38 since its introduction in the U.S. Congress earlier this year. It is one of the most aggressive and robust national right to carry reciprocity bills ever to be introduced in the U.S. If enacted, its practical effect would be to allow any law abiding citizen with any carry permit to carry anywhere in the country, with extremely limited exceptions.
Because the U.S. Senate is 8 votes short of a filibuster-proof majority, the bill cannot pass without bi-partisan support, and it is unknown at present whether there are sufficient votes to pass H.R. 38. Additionally, some legal scholars have expressed concern that H.R. 38 will face legal challenge because it arguably interferes with states’ rights to regulate their own citizens. For that reason, lesser alternatives to H.R. 38 (that would not have helped New Jersey residents carry in New Jersey) have moved in Congress in the past.
ANJRPC fully supports H.R. 38 and is working to ensure that the legislation is passed in Congress and gets to President Trump’s desk.
The excitement over H.R. 38 has renewed interest among New Jersey gun owners in obtaining Florida and Utah non-resident carry permits. If H.R. 38 does move, a huge backlog of non-resident permit applications is anticipated as residents of a number of anti-gun states scramble to get their permits.
While there is no guarantee that H.R. 38 will move or pass, we think it’s a good idea to be prepared and secure your permit now. ANJRPC has brought back its Right to Carry Road Show permitting events at Cherry Ridge Range in an effort to accommodate renewed demand.
OUR COURTS STILL HATE NON-RESIDENT COP CARRY
When the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA) was first passed in 2004, it allowed certain law enforcement officers to carry handguns across state lines throughout the U.S. At the time, the New Jersey attorney general announced that it would not honor the law and threatened to arrest non-resident officers carrying firearms in New Jersey.
Although the New Jersey attorney general has since reversed that position, apparently some New Jersey courts didn’t get the memo. Check out this recent decision of a New Jersey Appellate Division court denying LEOSA protection to an active-duty Marine Corps sergeant / military police officer from Virginia who was involved in a 2011 incident in New Jersey.
Even though amendments to LEOSA in 2013 clarified that military police are covered by the law, the court found that because the incident pre-dated the clarification, he was not protected by LEOSA. The decision turned on the hypertechnical distinction between military police officers having powers of “apprehension” rather than “arrest.”
OUR COURTS STILL HATE CITIZEN RIGHT TO CARRY
In a February 14 decision, a U.S. District Court dealt a fatal blow dismissing a recent challenge to New Jersey’s carry laws as moot (because one plaintiff received a New Jersey carry permit after the case was filed), and for lack of standing (because another plaintiff withdrew his permit application altogether).
Brought by two out-of-state attorneys, the case was touted as a “cause celebre” and fundraising vehicle by other gun groups. ANJRPC, which independently challenged justifiable need in the earlier case Drake v. Jerejian and helped obtain executive action on New Jersey carry last year, declined to participate in the newer case because it viewed the lawsuit as improvidently conceived and timed.
Disturbingly, when one plaintiff was separately issued a carry permit after the case was filed, it was touted as a Second Amendment “victory” even though only one person benefitted and the permit grant was not based on any ruling in the case.
The case is a reminder of just how hostile the courts are to right to carry, and of the need for Second Amendment litigation to be timed and undertaken with great care and discipline.