In Wake of SCOTUS 2A Ruling NJ Drops Justifiable Need for Concealed Carry

Welcome to New Jersey NJ
Welcome to New Jersey

New Jersey – -( At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed WITHOUT an applicant having to prove “justifiable need.”

NJ Drops Justifiable Need for Concealed Carry Applications

The effect of this directive is to remove any doubt that the Bruen decision applies in New Jersey, and that someone applying for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State need only satisfy typical requirements, such as:

  • 1. Passing state-mandated background checks.
  • 2. Submitting three references.
  • 3. Satisfying the state-mandated training requirement for firearms carry permits.

While Gov. Murphy has announced that he intends to try to limit carry in every way possible, whatever actions he tries to take will have to pass Constitutional muster under Bruen. Today’s announcement by the Attorney General is nothing short of EARTH-SHAKING and represents the culmination of decades of incredibly difficult work by gun owners.

Congratulations To Every Honest Gun Owner In New Jersey!

About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs: The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state, and federal levels that would infringe upon these rights. Visit:

Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ATTABOY, ATTAGIRL, New Jersey! While it is unconstitutional to require anyone’s approval to carry a firearm, the positive thinking citizens of New Jersey are to be commended for their steadfast support of our country’s 2nd amendment to The Constitution. You do good work!


I read where over population of whitetail deer is becoming a problem in New Jersey . The cause is reported to be a shortage of hunters . I wonder why . Are hunters there expected to use bear spray ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Oldvet

Are you kidding me Oldvet?
Could you imagine the danger to law enforcement officials when conducting traffic stops if people were allowed to drive around all willy-nilly with bear spray!


Three References? I don’t see anything in the Constitution about a need for references. That’s blatantly a violation in and of itself. You don’t need three references to speak your opinion.


Well . . . I could vouch for FOUR in parts of NY.

The Crimson Pirate

Now get them to issue non resident permits and/or recognize licenses/permits from other states,


force them to recognize other permits same as drivers license

Wild Bill

Yes, the full faith and credit clause!


Good luck on that front.
Reciprocity should be automatic if you have a concealed carry license in another state. It won’t be though.


Nothing in the Bill of Rights intends your rights to END at the state line!
Does everyone have to duct tape their mouths to prevent free speech when they hit the Jersey line?


Funny in the eleventh hour in the last seconds Murphy got the ballots needed to keep him in office. Democrats “RATS” that continue to plague our country while there party sinks to new levels of criminal behavior.
You know what good about NJ “Nothing At All “


Still unconstitutional. Mandated training and three references still impose an unwarranted, unreasonable and unconstitutional burden on the exercise of an enumerated natural right. Back to square one, folks. Constitutional Carry. State issued permits are a nice to have but not constitutionally mandated nor are they permitted. Think about it. If you are posting here, you are the press every bit as much as the authors of our Federalist (and anti-federalist) Papers were in their time. You do not need an address on 42nd Street in New York to be considered ‘press.’ As such, the government cannot require you to get… Read more »


I understand that if Justices Thomas and Alito had their way, the most recent ruling would have done away with permits. As I understand it, Roberts and Kavanaugh held out for the permitting (“reasonable control and regulation”) verbiage.

Likely hundreds of better choices from our vast nation could have been made than Kavanaugh, but Trump had to pick him.


Trump didn’t have to pick Sissy Kavanagh. He lazily listened to FedSoc’s legal priest fools. All 3 of his noms thanked him by helping the DemCom-RINO Deep State steal the White House and set a precedent of a de facto state’s right to steal elections. The only loyal justices are Thomas & Alito.

SCROTUS Big Steal.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

next reciprocity, that would kill them

Desert Guy

I can hear the Governors and Attorneys General now… “Shall Not Comply!”

Last edited 1 month ago by Desert Guy

I can see the agents and officers losing paperwork. I had a friends who moved to NJ from Mississippi. He had a ccl for 30 years and had worked for dept of public safety. He applied for one there and they lied to him, lost paperwork, canceled meetings last minute. Essentially everything thing they could to obstruct him.


It is called Jim Crow. Administrative nullification of enumerated rights comes from the old Progressive Movement, the Reconstruction era nullification of newly recognized rights for black and poor people. This is what you will continue to face in any progressive utopia. Keep them in court, sue under the. Civil Rights Act of 1965 when ever possible and invoke both civil and criminal penalties against bureaucrats. It worked again Bull Connor. It will work against Murphy in New Jersey.


This a good first step.

That they folded so fast.

But it is a step to try and keep the rest of their restrictions alive.

I think the rest of them will fall but it well take time.


I was surprised NY did not change the rules to stop the case like they did with possession in the home, just lots of hoops but people could get a cc but no they rolled the dice and lost big

Last edited 1 month ago by swmft

Now, “Shall Issue” is the law of the land.

Carl up North

I would think the requirement to be “endorsed by three reputable persons who have known the applicant for at least three years preceding the date of application” would be immediately challengable under Bruen as unduly burdening the Second Amendment.


Nah. Not saying that couldn’t be challenged, but it’s an equally applied requirement that doesn’t violate the 14th. NY’s law violated the 14th. You’d also need a plaintiff that was aggrieved enough by the requirement to warrant a case.


What other enumerated right do you have to be vouched for before you can utilize it? This is exactly the ‘two step’ rule that the Bruen explicitly forbids.


The rejected step of the two-step your referring to is the use of means-end analysis for how a court decides if a law is constitutional.

I certainly agree having to be vouched for is BS, but NYSRPA vs. Bruen doesn’t cover it.


(1) Since Heller and McDonald , the Courts of Appeals have devel- oped a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment chal- lenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court re-  jects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller , which demands a test rooted in the Sec- ond Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller  and McDon- ald  do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller ’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly… Read more »


Thanks for providing the text that I just properly paraphrased, I guess?


No, just like the militia clause the ruling provides A reason not the ONLY reason. It expressly states: “The Court re- jects that two-part approach as having one step too many.”. Pretty clear.


It’s clear that they reject the means-end scrutiny step. How are you construing that to mean that providing references “is exactly the ‘two step’ rule that the Bruen explicitly forbids”?


As I stated above they are giving the reason for rejecting the means law, they are also stating the 2 step may not be applied. The NY law is an example of the improper use of the 2 step testing but it states in a separate sentence the 2 step may not be applied to the 2A or any other right.

You are conflating a reason with the only reason just as those that argue being in a militia is the only reason to have a gun instead of a reason to have a gun.


No. I’m not conflating anything. I’m saying the ruling, which required the violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, doesn’t cover this.

If you’re only saying the rejection of means-end scrutiny provides a groundwork for all sorts of 2A infringements to fail future court battles, then your absolutely right it does.


Yes, that is exactly what I am stating. That the ruling is not limited to this case alone but can be used as precedent for other cases.


We quibble on wording, but I don’t think we disagree on that.

Now find a plaintiff who is significantly aggrieved by having to provide the names of three people who won’t call him a rapist so much so that the case won’t be dismissed by any judge that hears the case.


One possible way that the 14th Amendment could be applied is for out-of-state U.S. citizens who wish to carry under a Federal law in New Jersey. I did not research the wording of the New Jersey law requiring three references, but if it expects them to find those three in New Jersey, that would be difficult and they would not be equally protected under the law compared to residents of New Jersey. If the law excludes out-of-state people from having New Jersey permits, then that would be unequal protection under the law.



we have all read it at least once , having it in front of you when we are chatting is kind of nice .exact words; but then the meanings of words can be corrupted the demoncrats are currently working on changing “right” to “privilege” same as they did to gay make a word that meant happy care free , to queer make sure you correct people when they use the words wrong , stupid is stupid, dumb is inability to speak


Now that’s amazing. What’s next? California? Chiraq? Maybe even New York (LOL)?

Dubi Loo

Illinois has been a “shall issue” state for many years.

The Crimson Pirate

Yeah but they are still fighting many battles to make it cheaper, quicker, and more reasonable.


like constitutional carry nationally


That is the only answer to the problem.


And banning “gun free” zones. It ain’t ConCarry till then, which is why so many died in Uvalde.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

OreGONEISTAN is a shall issue and I was concerned as crazy as they are out here that they were going to try and change us to a MAY ISSUE state. They don’t have reciprocity with any other states. They do require two references for a permit which is BS. OreGONE masters seem to want to do everything they can to control guns and people. The question is can I breathe a sigh of relief on the new Shall Issue ruling? We don’t follow Federal law here like allowing all drug possession to be legal if for personal consumption and being… Read more »


Huh. Yet they elect commie after commie these days & gave us Barak The Magic ‘Gro. Not all Shall Issue laws are equal. Some have worse requirements and subject to more “gun free” zones. How’s it compare to others?




Speaking of dummies

LaPew keeps his arm up the bungalow
Of a meat puppet called Michaelangelo.
Pepe works his controls
Mikey shills for his goals
Then comes up for air with an afterglow!

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r