“John Drake, a Fredon [NJ] man who owns an ATM business and occasionally carries large amounts of cash… says he needs a handgun for personal protection, according to court documents.”
That’s not good enough for New Jersey. We insist that you have a “justifiable need” to carry weapons for personal protection — and carrying wads of money from your ATM business just doesn’t cut it.
Now, it’s a crime that the state tells someone who carries a lot of cash for his livelihood that he can’t defend himself. But this case shouldn’t be decided on that basis, because it doesn’t matter what he does for a living or what cash he carries. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed — not even by government bureaucrats.
Sorry, I meant especially not by government bureaucracies. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from random forces or from our fellow citizens. It protects us from government bodies, federal and (because of the Incorporation Doctrine) state and local.
If you’d like to roll back the Incorporation Doctrine, I will stop arguing that New Jersey’s attempt to restrict guns within the state, and only allow people with “justifiable need” carry them, is a stupid and clearly unconstitutional move — i.e., a violation of the rule of law.
Until then, this should be an open and shut case. And it is a case — the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear it or not within the next week or so. And their position should be (not to say will be) obvious: You don’t need to justify your right to speak. You don’t need to justify your right not to have soldiers quartered in your houses. And you don’t need to justify your right to keep and bear arms.