|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Governor Christie Protects Individuals’ Right to Firearms for Self-Defense, Protection
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The regulation adds "serious threats" to the circumstances that could demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life - including evidence of serious threats that are not directed specifically at an individual but which establish more than mere generalized fears or concerns - that a private citizen may specify in a written certification of justifiable need submitted with an application for a permit to carry a handgun.
The amendment also clarifies that the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun can be based on a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other "reasonable" means, rather than by “any” means, as the regulation currently provides. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(4/10/2016)
|
| Yeah well, Kristy Kreeme still doesn't get it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
