A new lawsuit has been filed against state officials and several judges in New Jersey over procedures that allowed them to refuse firearms permits for a kidnap victim, a man who carries large amounts of cash for his business and a civilian FBI employee who fears attacks from radical Islamists.

"Do citizens need guns to their heads or knives to their throats before the state considers their need to be justified?" said Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which is pursuing the case.

The organization has brought a long list of complaints in court already since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals, not just state-organized guard or militia units.

The newest action was brought in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Superior Court judges Philip M. Maenza of Morris County, Rudolph A. Filko of Passaic County and Edward A. Jerejian of Bergen County in addition to Rick Fuentes of the state police, Hammonton police chief Frank Ingemi and New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow.

Read Wayne LaPierre's detailed explanations on "SAFE: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family and your Home"

State officials contacted by WND declined to comment on the situation.

But the SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and six private citizens whose applications for permits to carry guns have been denied on the grounds they have not shown a "justifiable need."

"Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state's horribly crafted laws," said Gottlieb. "The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.

"If being a kidnap victim, or part-time law enforcement officer, or the potential target of a known radical group does not clearly demonstrate a justifiable need," Gottlieb continued, "the defendants need to explain what would."

He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "prohibits states from completely banning the carrying of handguns for self-defense."

"Nor may states deny citizens the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places or deprive them of the right to carry in an arbitrary and capricious manner. That's what is happening today in New Jersey, and we intend to stop it," he said.

The complaint itself states, "The states retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns within constitutional parameters; to prohibit the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places; to prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection; and, to disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns."

But it continued, '"The states may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations o the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment."

The foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Assisting in a number of the cases has been attorney Alan Gura, who was successful in his Supreme Court arguments in the McDonald case out of Chicago in which the court determined the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not just to state National Guard units or others in the U.S. military. The case struck down far-reaching gun bans.

Gura also argued and won the 2008 Heller case in the Supreme Court that eliminated the blanket ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.

The foundation already has brought to court at least five other cases over local restrictions that it believes are precluded by the Supreme Court's latest ruling:

• The SAF filed a case on behalf of an honorably discharged veteran from the Vietnam War and names as defendants Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Jefferson Wayne Schrader. The question is whether the state of Maryland can deprive an individual of the right to possess a weapon over a misdemeanor. Schrader had been convicted of misdemeanor assault relating to a fight involving a man who previously had assaulted him in Annapolis. But he was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection.

• The organization sued the city of Chicago again, this time because it adopted a requirement that gun owners spend time at shooting ranges, then banned shooting ranges. Gottlieb said, "They have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time." The Second Amendment Foundation said the city's regulations are depriving citizens of their rights.

• It filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleges the state is violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard's permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials now have refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.

• It sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring residents to have a "good cause" to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to "keep and bear arms." Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.

• The earliest case to result from the McDonald decision challenged a practice in North Carolina of banning guns during "emergencies." The case claimed state statutes forbidding the carrying of firearms or ammunition when officials declare "states of emergency" are unconstitutional. Further, the plaintiffs said a state law allowing the government to prohibit the sale, purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional. WND reported earlier this year when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a "declared snow emergency."

The high court's 5-4 ruling in the first Chicago case was forecast to bring on such challenges.

It flipped "the burden onto the government and legislatures to show why they need to restrict what the court has already said is an individual right," John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, told WND after the decision.

There is other action on the state level regarding gun rights. Already, eight states have adopted laws that exempt guns made, sold and kept inside the states from any federal gun regulations.

A court case already is being heard over the effort in Montana – the first state to take the step of ordering federal regulators to stay out of the state's business of regulating its citizenry's weapons.

In Wyoming, lawmakers even adopted a $2,000 penalty for federal agents trying to enforce federal regulations against an exempted weapon.

www.wnd.com/

Nov. 23, 2010