Quoted:
The case is about a guy who applied for a FPID and handgun purchase permit and was denied because one of the two references he gave on the application provided a bad reference (there's more to it if you read the opinion, but that's a very brief summary). You can read the opinion
here.
One part of the opinion that is of interest discusses DC v. Heller's applicability to NJ's permit process. The opinion states:
"However, the Court [in DC v. Heller] expressly indicated that its holding did
not require invalidation of statutes that require a license to
purchase or possess a firearm. Id. at ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. at
2816-17, 2819, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court
noted that "[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in
an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]'" thus obviating the need
for the Court to address the validity of the specific provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun licensing statutes. Id. at
___, 128 S. Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed. 2d at 681. Therefore, Heller
9 A-0832-08T4
has no impact upon the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(5)."
So they found that NJ's current permit issuing process is not in violation of DC v. Heller. I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.
I was under the impression that Heller simply did not address permits since it was not under contention in the case brought to the court. So it was not validated but simply not addressed at all. Am I wrong?