By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Extreme disappointment has followed in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that it would not grant review of a challenge to New Jersey’s ultra-restrictive concealed carry law that prevents virtually everyone from obtaining a carry license.
The arbitrary nature of New Jersey’s concealed carry permitting scheme has infuriated Garden State gun owners for many years. The court’s denial of a petition for certiorari has left gun rights activists fuming and convinced the high court is afraid to address the issue of carrying firearms outside the home for personal protection.
The court never gives a reason for such a denial, but gun rights advocates contend that this leaves a gaping hole in the Second Amendment’s affirmation and protection of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the third time in recent memory the high court has turned down an opportunity to review a concealed carry case, thus leaving open the question about how restrictive a state’s regulation on bearing arms can be.
Plaintiffs in the case of Drake v. Jerejian were the Second Amendment Foundation and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC). Attorney Alan Gura, representing both groups, told TGM via e-mail that he is disappointed by the court’s rejection of this case.
“It’s disappointing,” Gura said, “but courts are still uncomfortable with the concept of Second Amendment rights. Look at the Palmer challenge to DC’s carry ban, pending since October 6, 2009, without a district court decision.”
ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach, also noted via e-mail, “Naturally, we are very disappointed. We believe this is a good case, and we believe in the issue. At some point, the question of bearing arms for personal protection outside the home must be addressed.”
Previous rulings in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald cases affirmed the right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. However, the states are divided in how they regulate the carrying of defensive arms outside the home. Most states have “shall issue” licensing laws, but a handful of states, most notably New Jersey and Maryland, still cling to a restrictive licensing scheme under which hardly anyone is granted a carry license. This is based on a very arbitrary “needs” requirement under which officials in those states typically determine that an applicant for a license has not demonstrated a genuine need to carry a firearm.
Today’s decision comes on the heels of Friday’s monthly update by the Washington State Department of Licensing that the number of active concealed pistol licenses has climbed to 457,344, up more than 3,100 CPLs from last month. Across the country, there are now more than 11 million citizens licensed to carry, according to the latest estimate from veteran researcher John Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of “More Guns = Less Crime.”
Reaction to the court’s apparent reluctance to review the Drake case range from astonishment to anger. Comments on the SCOTUS.Blog website following the announcement included one suggestion that the high court does not want to take another Second Amendment case.
Gun rights advocates insist that the Second Amendment needs full clarification. The court has said that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that extends beyond service in a militia. The court also has affirmed the right of citizens to keep handguns in the home for personal protection. What remains is for the court to determine the parameters of bearing arms outside the home. Circuit courts of appeal are divided on the issue.
There may be other cases on the horizon, but for now, Second Amendment activists will be fuming. They will also be looking at the November mid-term elections, with a new understanding about the importance of elections, particularly in state legislatures where restrictive gun laws can be amended, repealed or replaced.
