The case is about a reserve, not retired, cop. I don’t know the circumstances of his application for a gun, and apparently you don’t either, but you’re entirely willing to immediately say it’s ridiculous he can’t get a CCW. Maybe this is an egregious case, maybe it isn’t, but you don’t seem to have even looked it at all carefully.

Sociologically, if you actually want to show harm from New Jersey’s policy, the figure that you need to find is those who were denied CCWs who were then attacked. That would be the most pertinent statistics. It is likely to be difficult to obtain, but if you want to make a non-ideological argument then, you should find that.

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing. Past that, yeah he gets to carry. I do assert that as the right thing to have arranged under the law.

Sociologically is not my standard at all. I leave that to you. Legally when a jurisdiction treats reasonable need so strictly as to deny those who they denied in this case-Heck yeah that’s wrong. That’s a stealth denial of a right to carry under that states law. It’s called a poison pill when it’s written in. When it’s not even written in, it’s an abuse of the law by the government, The state courts should know better than to allow it.

If I were to think about sociologically, well I’d still prefer well written laws left un-abused by the government as the best thing for society long term.

Again when states can encroach on constitutional rights or simple rights under the law as written we have a problem to address.

At what point might you admit the state has wronged an applicant?