Rogers v. Grewal

140 S. Ct. 1865 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The central dispute in this matter is whether New Jersey's 'justifiable need' restriction in its handgun permit laws is unconstitutional. New Jersey generally forbids a person from possessing any handgun 'without first obtaining a permit to carry the same.' A party cannot carry a handgun in public, either openly or concealed, without first obtaining a permit. A party must first submit an application to the chief police officer of the municipality in which he or she resides. If the chief officer determines the applicant meets all statutory requirements and approves the application, the application is then presented to the Superior Court of the county where he or she resides. The court shall issue the permit only if, it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun. An applicant must demonstrate there is an 'urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by serious threats, specific threats, or previous attacks, which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by reasonable means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.' If the application is denied, the applicant can also appeal the denial to the Superior Court. P was denied, a permit to carry a firearm in public. P admittedly did not face any special danger to his life and was denied by everyone in the chain of approval. Ps filed a Complaint against Ds alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Ps asked the court to declare unconstitutional the 'justifiable need' requirement. The court dismissed the complaint holding that the requirement that applicants demonstrate a 'justifiable need' to publicly carry a handgun qualified as a 'presumptively lawful,' 'longstanding' regulation and therefore did not infringe on the Second Amendment's guarantee. Ps petitioned the Supreme Court.