"Kidnap victim appeals to carry handgun"

This is a pretty bizarre story. A store owner who has recently been kidnapped by three criminals is denied the ability to get a concealed handgun permit in New Jersey because he "does not show justifiable need." I should also note that despite what the state police say, it is possible to learn the number of permits issued. The third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that in 2007 there were a little over 10,000 permits in New Jersey, half of those were to retired police.

A Newton pet food store owner kidnapped in front of his shop is appealing a judge's denial of his application to carry a handgun. . . .

State Police did a background check on Muller and initially approved his application. Permits to carry handguns in New Jersey need judicial approval, and last August, state Superior Court Judge Philip Maenza in Morristown denied the application. The judge determined that Muller's fear and his experience as a victim did not meet "the justifiable need" required by statute to carry a firearm.

Muller has now asked Superior Court Judge David Ironson in Morristown to reconsider the denial. A hearing was supposed to occur Monday but has been postponed. Neither Muller nor his attorney, Dave Jensen, could immediately be reached for comment.

State Police Sgt. Steve Jones said that, for security reasons, the numbers of people in New Jersey approved to purchase a handgun and/or carry a handgun are not publicly released. According to state law, judges use a two-prong test to evaluate handgun-carrying applications on a case-by-case basis.

The test requires the court to determine whether a person is subject to a substantial threat of bodily harm while performing duties authorized by statute, and whether a handgun is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious bodily harm.

Maenza, in a written decision last August, said: "This crime, and the fact that Mr. Muller will be called upon to testify against his captors, is the reason he has filed this application for a permit to carry a handgun. Mr. Muller, however, does not show justifiable need. Allowing a victim of a crime to carry a handgun without showing a justifiable need to carry one would be contrary to case law and the legislative intent of the statute." . . .



Blogger Harry Schell said...

What an insane idea of "justifiable need", but it works every day in urban areas of CA where the "good cause" of self-defense is not good enough, usually because the issuing authority will tell you normal police activity is adequate to protect you.

What they never will answer is if normal activity is enough, why is there any violent crime? It has to be that violent crime is sanctioned by law enforcement, if they are good enough to protect you and they don't.

3/07/2011 7:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home