STRATEGIC PARTNERS
April 24, 2014
In Missouri, it is possible to get a "concealed carry" gun permit if you're a Fritos distributor employee stocking convenience stores in a particularly rough neighborhood. But in New Jersey, carrying thousands in cash to stock your retail ATMs isn't sufficient justification for carrying a gun in public.
Such disparate interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are not unusual among states, but one case could be poised to set a clearer nationwide standard.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will consider whether to take up a case brought by ATM-owner John Drake and other plaintiffs who are challenging the New Jersey mandate.
Drake originally applied for a carry permit in 2010.
"I was simply just going for the right for myself to be able to carry a weapon to protect myself while I was out working on my ATM machines, whether it would be fixing them or putting money in them," Drake told the broadcast news outlet My9NJ.
"Some of the locations that we're at are maybe not the most desirable, a little bit dangerous and I have been threatened in the past and so I applied in the state of New Jersey through the state police for a carry permit."
Request denied. So Drake took his case to the district court and then to the appeals court. Both sided with the state of New Jersey, saying that "the justifiable need requirement is not an undue burden within the scope of the Second Amendment," according to a Washington Times report.
The Supreme Court can take one of three decisions on Drake's case: approve, deny, or take no action, thereby deferring the decision.
