New Jersey and California Updates

[Gary Slider]

Both New Jersey and California DOJ have put out Directives/Legal Alerts instructing the Issuing Authorities in their respective states that the Good Cause no longer applies. That will make it less difficult in these two states but not a walk in the park. Handgunlaw.us believes that the May Issue states will change their statutes/rules removing the Just Cause but they will make it as difficult and Expensive as they can. They will most likely drag their feet in doing so. We also believe they will expand their list of places off limits the same as DC did when they were forced to go Shall Issue.

Link to CA Legal Alert - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

Link to NJ Directive - https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive%20Clarifying%20Requirements%20For%20Carrying%20Of%20Firearms%20In%20Public.pdf

You should read all the SCOTUS Opinion.  There are some really good things in there about your rights and issuing permits etc.  One example at the bottom of Page 36 of SCOTUS Ruling are footnotes (Bold  mine) that state the following:

_______________________

⁹To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554

U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birming­ham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant-well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permit­ting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitu­tional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

________________________