Comment

Strict N.J. Rule on Gun Permits Stands, as Supreme Court Refuses Case

13
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)5/05/2014 4:18:16 pm PDT

re: #9 Political Atheist

I give law officers the presumed benefit of proper intent and need. And exemplary of how far beyond reason I think you would set the bar. It’s really odd to me you won’t.

How on earth is it odd that I’m not willing to let every reserve officer have an off-duty piece? Again, you seem to be mixing up reserve officers for regular cops. If a regular cop was denied a permit, I’d expect to see a rationale for denying him, like he was under review for discharging his firearm, or had gotten a DUI. But that rationale might still exist in any given individual case.

Now for the other guy the one that carries cash as part of his job? As a thought experiment as the level of detail available is limited-A couple assumptions-No record of violence etc. He can get the training as a part of the application process. We have the need covered. we have established he is of good character.Need, training, character. All stipulated.

When did we establish he is of good character? Is this literally saying you just made up a bunch of assumptions? And again, why do you get to determine ‘need’ and not the local law enforcement?

Lets add I support this law-
Don’t you? If not why not?

No, that’s an overbroad law that, ironically, can cause trouble for law enforcement. If a local law enforcement guy sees someone with a CCW in an area where he know’s that it’s illegal, he’ll have to try to figure out if the guy is a vacationing cop or a bad guy. Retired cops aren’t going to keep their edge forever.

I assert this to be a wrong against the person denied.

Sure. And like I said, if you can come up with data showing an actual harm from this denial, then you’ll have the beginnings of an argument. You could also find, for example, cases of people who quit their job because they felt unsafe not being able to carry a CCW.