Get And Sign RULE PROPOSALS Law Library The New Jersey State Library Law Njstatelib Form

This isn’t being proposed. This is the law in New Jersey and has been for the many years I’ve bothered to check.Applicants for a carry permit in the State of New Jersey must submit, along with their application, a letter stating their reasons behind their need to carry a weapon. This letter must detail credible threats, previous attacks or any additional circumstances which demonstrate a “special danger” to the applicant. The decision of whether the facts stated in the letter are true, correct and lead to the required conclusion that there is “justifiable need” lies with the police chief of the department to which the application is submitted, and to the Superior Court judge that issues final approval.Constitutional? Of course not. But this is New Jersey we’re talking about. The most populous state in the 3rd Circuit (with Pennsylvania a close second). Next door to New York City, only without the benefit of NY’s money to combat violent crime with the second-largest per-capita police presence in the country and a level of autonomy from higher government that is unique among the nation’s major cities.

You ask an excellent question.Obviously, laws remain on the books because the government of the jurisdiction has failed to remove them.They fail to remove laws that are unconstitutional because removing them takes time and effort. Often the folks running the government are focused on other things and unaware of old laws on the books until something happens to bring them to their attention.Politicians also fail to remove laws because they are concerned that they will look bad if they vote to remove a law. What can happen in controversial areas is that the opposing side can say, during election season, look so-and-so voted to remove this law, he supports X. This causes an unwillingness to remove laws in some areas.Problems arise, as you point out, when the police or prosecutors decide to use laws that are unconstitutional or outdated in order to achieve some goal that they have no business trying to accomplish. When police or prosecutors do these things, it is easy for them to cause substantial harm to someone. On the other hand, it can also be very expensive to tax payers, when the injured party sues the government for violating their constitutional rights.What happens sometimes is that someone with power has a vendetta against a specific person or a specific group, sees a law on the books and decides to take advantage of it. Or the officer may have a legitimate issue and be trying to find a way to handle it, and think oh, this old law is perfect.The person using the law may or may not be aware that the law is unconsitutional. Police do not tend to be legal scholars, nor do they need to be, so it is easy enough for them to be legitimately unaware that a law is unconstitutional. In an effort to sue, this reality can make it difficult for a person who had their civil rights violated to recover compensation, due to immunity. However, it is possible to defeat immunity under certain circumstances. Especially if there is solid evidence that the person knew the law was unconstitutional or that they engaged in bad faith use of the law.Keep in mind that laws can be constitutional but used in an unconstitutional way. That is another matter.

Brazilians are not allowed to have any type of fire arms anywhere, except for some special jobs, like judges, state prosecutors and the like. Bolsonaro, an ex-army officer, believes that criminality is going to be less if criminals are in doubt whether there are guns in a given home or shop or office. Today, they know for sure that nobody is armed…. Bolsonaro plans to change the law to allow private guns at domiciles and work places. Bearing guns in the streets will continue to be a fellony.

The question is moot and assumes that what is not possible could occur.There is no Constitutional mechanism where such a ridiculous event could occur.What would the point of such an event be?Laws do not supersede the U.S. Constitution.I suggest that you pay attention in your social studies classes.

As long as they make their propositions peacefully, and respect the democratic process currently on place, they are free to talk. People are allowed to propose ideas that others see as crazy, unworkable, or actively repellent. Because the electorate will see them off. It wouldn’t surprise me if, within the privacy of a secret ballot, a lot of Muslims would vote against such proposals. But that doesn’t remove their right to propose them.