The 3rd Circuit is not alone in okaying this kind of a “justifiable need” requirement (as judged by the government). Another is the 2d Circuit (read: crazy train NYC), which also has such idiocy, requiring a “proper cause,” such as “a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public”. Doesn’t that stand to reason, then, that they are disallowing the general public?

Via Breitbart:

In a case over New Jersey’s requirement that a citizen demonstrate “justifiable need” for a carrying a firearm before receiving a concealed carry license, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that such a requirement “does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.” The court also said “it remains unsettled” whether the Second Amendment is even applicable outside one’s home.

Filed on July 31, 2013, the ruling in Drake v. Filko upheld New Jersey’s practice of placing the burden of proof upon the citizen. In other words, the citizen who wants to carry a gun for self-defense must demonstrate why doing so is necessary for him or her. In simple terms, the citizen must justify being free.

Keep reading…http://weaselzippers.us/2013/08/06/u-s-c...tside-the-home/

"The court also said “it remains unsettled” whether the Second Amendment is even applicable outside one’s home."

No,it's not. You are a free citizen outside your home as much as you are inside your home,and NO government has the authority to deny a free citizen the ability to defend himself against attacks. Self-defense is a universal right,and the judicial system lacks the competence to define it in such a matter that "One size fits all".

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #2

---

"The court also said “it remains unsettled” whether the Second Amendment is even applicable outside one’s home."

---