The Sham of "May Issue" Continues
Do movie theater security guards need guns?
NJ judges say no
By George Devinny. September 26th, 2018
It might well be stated yet again that a law abiding person should need no 'permit' to carry a firearm, although there can sometimes be restrictions over places where carry is not permitted. Beyond this is the matter of permit issuance, which in the majority of states is based on "shall issue" - basically, an applicant needs only to be verified as being non criminal and with no prejudicial record to qualify. Sometimes training requirements are stipulated.
A few states also have what is commonly described as 'constitutional carry' such as Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas and Vermont - no permitting requirement. Then we have the infamous "may issue" states and New Jersey is one of those - this process might perhaps be described as 'if we feel like it' or just as likely, 'sorry no permit'. This brings up the thorny question of 'need' when an applicant has to show a good reason.
'Need' is conveniently treated by many as subjective, open to definition, and frequently more than likely dependent on the whim of a sheriff or judge as to whether a case is even allowable. From NewJersey 101.5:
A security guard at a local movie theater applied for a carry permit, which was approved by the borough police chief. A Superior Court judge sitting in Elizabeth, however, denied Calvin Carlstrom's application in February -- a decision that was upheld Monday by an appellate court panel.
Carlstrom worked as a security guard at an AMC theater and applied for the permit to carry a gun in June 2016. He listed his occupation as a security guard for Global Security Services.
He submitted several endorsements, certificates for firearms trainings and a letter from Global Security's director of operations that noted his job duties would include "protection of life, as well as cash transfers in the theaters." The letter from John DeVino also noted that "large amounts of cash" are moved across the theater, and that theaters have been identified as "soft targets" for terrorists by the Department of Homeland Security.
Carlstrom's application was approved by the Roselle Park police chief in October 2016, but Judge William A. Daniel denied the application without a hearing. In his denial, the judge noted that Carlstrom did not establish "justifiable need" to carry a gun.
"Applicant failed to establish that he, in the course of his described employment, will be subjected to a substantial threat of serious bodily harm and that carrying a handgun is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious harm to any person," the judge's decision said.
Here we see a case of 'good reason' being what could well be regarded as above the norm while remembering the Colorado Aurora movie theater mayhem. A well qualified security guard wished to be able to carry at work in an AMC movie theater, which these days most certainly could be regarded as a soft target, and yet despite a police chief approval an anti rights judge unjustifiably and cruely overturned that decision.
From a Second Amendment point of view 'need' is quite simply the wish to claim the innate right to self defense, based perhaps just on the simple common sense approach of "expect the unexpected" or even "better to have and not need than need and not have'! There should not even be any requirement at all to show 'need' or 'good reason' when rights are respected.
