‘[Justice Clarence] Thomas wrote that the court has referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a “fundamental right,” but that right is barred in jurisdictions requiring a good reason to do so in public. If the court were faced with a law requiring the showing of a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights or the right to an abortion, the court would almost certainly review that law, he wrote. “But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the court simply looks the other way,” Thomas wrote.’
The high court’s decision lets stand a U.S. District Court ruling that rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s law requiring anyone seeking a permit to carry a weapon to prove they have a justifiable need.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to New Jersey’s law concerning the right to carry a handgun in public, although two dissenting justices said the court should have heard the case.
The high court’s decision lets stand a U.S. District Court ruling that rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s law requiring anyone seeking a permit to carry a weapon to prove they have a justifiable need. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh said in a 19-page dissenting opinion that they saw the case as an opportunity to provide guidance to lower courts and to resolve a split among the circuits.
The challenge to New Jersey’s law was brought by Thomas Rogers, who works supplying automatic teller machines with cash. His application for a permit to carry a weapon was turned down by his town’s police chief, who concluded that Rogers failed to specify specific threats as a reason why he should be allowed to carry a handgun. U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti dismissed Rogers’ constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s law requiring people to demonstrate a justifiable need in order to carry a firearm.
