“Justifiable Need” or Power Grab? Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Cases on Controversial Gun Laws in New Jersey
New Jersey law requires people looking to get a permit to carry a handgun to have a “justifiable need” to get one. A “justifiable need” is defined as “urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.” A challenge was brought to the Supreme Court against this law because it is seen as too restrictive against the Second Amendment. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Therefore, the law in New Jersey stands.
The challenge to this law was brought by Thomas Rogers. He works filling automatic teller machines with cash. His local police chief denied his application for a permit because Rogers had not written down any specific threats he was facing that would allow him to be able to carry a gun. The Supreme Court also declined to hear a similar New Jersey case that challenged the same law. In that case, Douglas Ciolek’s police chief denied Ciolek’s application for a permit to carry his gun, saying that he did not have a justifiable reason to carry a gun. The Supreme Court also turned down the opportunity to hear several other cases regarding the Second Amendment this past term. This move is surprising since President Trump has been appointing more conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and it’s definitely not a decision that those in favor of fewer gun restrictions wanted to hear.
The reason Rogers’ case was dismissed is based on a 2013 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Drake v. Filko, which said that the “justifiable need” requirement in New Jersey does not violate the Second Amendment. However, Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh say that this decision conflicts with Wren v. District of Columbia, a 2017 case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which overturned a law requiring a person applying for a permit to carry a gun in public to state their reason for doing so.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Gurbir Grewal gave a joint statement defending this restriction: “As we’ve said all along, New Jersey’s law limiting public carrying of weapons protects our residents and makes our communities safer. We are thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed our law, like other public carry laws across the nation, to remain in place.” According to the Gifford Law Center, New Jersey is the state with the second-highest amount of restrictions on guns, with California being the only state with more. Yet even with all these restrictions, as of July 2020, gun violence in New Jersey is up 19 percent from the same time one year ago. The governor blamed external factors on the violence in a briefing he gave: “We’re not immune to what we’re seeing around the country in terms of this lethal cocktail of being pent up, hot weather, trying to undo the state of racism, folks trying to come to grips with community and police relations. There’s a lot of non-COVID violence everywhere, seems like everywhere in the country.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear cases about the New Jersey gun laws has allowed the laws to remain in place. This move represents a stumbling block for those in favor of gun rights and a major victory for those in favor of more restrictions on guns. This court decision (or lack thereof) displays a microcosm of the battle between both sides of the gun debate. Whether the Supreme Court will continue this court or decide to take up other gun control cases in the near future remains to be seen.
