New Jersey is never going to be what anyone would call a gun-friendly state. It's one of those states where you're better than most if you say, "I support the Second Amendment but..."
It's not great. However, the courts might be worse, because they can make some particularly dumb arguments.
That's especially true when it comes to standing. If you're unfamiliar with the term, standing means you actually have grounds to sue because what you're challenging has affected you. I, as a man, can't sue a male-only organization for failing to include women, for example, while my wife hypothetically could.
But in a recent New Jersey case, the issue of standing betrays what may be a clear sign of mental disability in the judge.
From our sister site, Bearing Arms:
New Jersey is one of many states that prohibit adults under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm, even they're legally eligible to possess one. And when three young adults who were facing accusations of illegal gun possession challenged their indictments as a violation of their Second Amendment rights last year, a judge agreed and dismissed the charges.
Prosecutors appealed, however, and this week the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court reinstated the charges for the dumbest of reasons.
We conclude defendants lacked standing to raise their Second Amendment claims because they failed to apply for a handgun carry permit.
Why on earth would someone apply for a carry permit knowing they would be turned down because of their age? In order to apply for a permit an applicant has to fork over $200, which isn't refunded if you end up getting denied. It's absolutely ridiculous to demand that someone waste hundreds of dollars just to be able to raise a claim that their civil rights were violated if they ever get arrested for carrying without a permit.
The first court to hear the motions to dismiss got it right, but the appellate court rejected its reasoning out of hand.
I mean, honestly...
This is absolute BS. If the requirements clearly state that you must be 21, and you're not 21, then why would you even bother applying? Especially to the tune of $200 you'll never see again, knowing good and well you wouldn't have been approved.
The fact that he was excluded out of hand should give him standing all by itself.
I'm not an attorney, of course, so maybe there's some nuance here I'm missing, but a previous court felt this individual did have standing because the prohibition was explicitly stated.
It might have been different if it hadn't been, and the lawsuit was about a subtle form of discrimination. It's not, though, and that's what's so stupid here.
There will likely be an additional challenge, of course, but who knows how that will go since it's freaking New Jersey. Plus, with it being a state court, you're unlikely to see any sanity get injected into the judicial system anytime soon.
If they can make a case like this on standing because someone didn't bother to ask the state to do something the state explicitly told him it would not do, then we're either looking at crazy, stupid, or some combination thereof.
