N.J. Attorney General Acknowledges N.J. Must Now Go “Shall-Issue” on Concealed Carry Permits

Must read

Morgan Stanley slashes its U.S. housing market outlook—where it sees the home price correction going in 2023

On a national basis, home prices fell 1.3% between June and August. That marked the first decline measured by the lagged Case-Shiller National Home...

When will Netflix shutter its DVD mail service? It’s a matter of when, not if.

Netflix’s trailblazing DVD-by-mail rental service has been relegated as a relic in the age of video streaming, but there is still a steady —...

Europeans furious about Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act are threatening a trade spat: ‘Nobody wants to get into a tit-for-tat’

The European Union and the United States are treading precariously close to a major trans-Atlantic trade dispute at a time when the two Western giants...

New Jersey could kill up to 2.4 million trees in one of the state’s environmental treasures—but officials say they’re just scrawny shrubs

Up to 2.4 million trees would be cut down as part of a project to prevent major wildfires in a federally protected New Jersey...

AG’s Enforcement Directive No. 22-07, issued Friday, makes clear that (effective immediately) applicants no longer need to submit a “written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.” As with California, it appears that no further legislative change is required for New Jersey’s may-issue system to switch to, effectively, shall-issue.

The law still continues to require, though, that the applicant “be endorsed by three reputable persons who have known the applicant for at least three years preceding the date of application, and who shall also certify thereon that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior.” As I mentioned in my post about the California AG’s letter, it’s not clear to me that such a character-reference requirement is a permissible condition for exercising what the Court has said is a constitutional right. The Court has made clear that objective disqualifications for things such as felony conviction or mental illness are constitutionally permissible, but requiring character references as to “good moral character and behavior” strikes me as much harder to justify.

I understand why people might think that someone who can’t round up even three people who can speak highly of him is likely to be an odd duck. (Note that the people needn’t be New Jersey residents, so this shouldn’t be a huge burden even to people who have just moved to New Jersey.) Still, it seems to me that a constitutional right can’t be a right at the sufferance of one’s friends or acquaintances.

More articles

Latest article

Morgan Stanley slashes its U.S. housing market outlook—where it sees the home price correction going in 2023

On a national basis, home prices fell 1.3% between June and August. That marked the first decline measured by the lagged Case-Shiller National Home...

When will Netflix shutter its DVD mail service? It’s a matter of when, not if.

Netflix’s trailblazing DVD-by-mail rental service has been relegated as a relic in the age of video streaming, but there is still a steady —...

Europeans furious about Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act are threatening a trade spat: ‘Nobody wants to get into a tit-for-tat’

The European Union and the United States are treading precariously close to a major trans-Atlantic trade dispute at a time when the two Western giants...

New Jersey could kill up to 2.4 million trees in one of the state’s environmental treasures—but officials say they’re just scrawny shrubs

Up to 2.4 million trees would be cut down as part of a project to prevent major wildfires in a federally protected New Jersey...

Finland to return sanctioned Russian property

Several hundred Russian...