Should the US Supreme Court hear the case of John Drake – the Sussex County man whose application to carry a concealed weapon has been denied by the New Jersey State Police?

So far the New Jersey courts have decreed that he hasn’t shown a “justifiable need” to carry a concealed weapon.

Given the prejudice against “gun nuts,” it doesn’t surprise me that the courts here in New Jersey, coupled with our strict gun control laws decide the way they do.

But John Drake doesn’t fit that description in the least.

All he’s looking for is to affirm his 2nd Amendment right to be able to defend himself.

Common sense would dictate that since his business is operating a string of ATMs and collecting cash from them, that he would have the need to carry a concealed weapon since he’s had a few close calls in the past.

However, trying to show you have a “justifiable need” to carry in this state is as impossible as trying to find the proverbial “needle in the haystack!”

And it looks as though the Attorney General is inserting himself in the case by petitioning the US Supreme Court to not hear his case.

Just for the purpose of some background, this report from News12 states:

John Drake owns about 30 ATMs, located in stores and bodegas all over North Jersey. He drives around filling them himself, often carrying large amounts of cash.

When he applied for a permit to carry a handgun for protection, his application was denied. State police say he does not have a "justifiable need" for carrying a weapon, because there are other precautions he could take first.

However, Drake tells News 12 New Jersey that he absolutely has a need, saying, "I'm carrying up to $80,000 in cash on me."


For their part, the Supreme Court will consider hearing the case on April 25th.

Mr. Drake applied for a handgun permit from New Jersey in 2010 but was rejected on the grounds that he did not have a “justifiable need” to carry one.

A district court and then an appeals court have sided with the state, saying the justifiable need requirement is not an undue burden within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Justices can approve, deny, or take no action on the plaintiffs’ request to have the high court consider the case.

How ironic is it that the reporter in the accompanying video states that Brinks security personnel are allowed to carry guns when they make stops at banks and other locations where cash pickups are common – but the average businessman who handles lots of cash is not.

The case will be looked at closely – but if I were a betting man, given the fervor over gun control in this country, the justices may just punt on this one.

Should the Sussex County ATM owner be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon?