Nicholas Pugliese

State House Bureau, @nickpugz

The state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature has filed a lawsuit claiming that the Christie administration overstepped its authority when it eased a state regulation last month to allow more people to carry handguns.

After Christie proposed the changes last year, the Legislature invoked its constitutional right to block them on the grounds that the moves defied the legislative intent of the existing law. But the administration adopted the amended rule, arguing that the Legislature’s actions were “deficient.”

The change took effect Monday. Now, applicants need only show they face “serious threats” to receive a permit to carry a handgun. Previously, applicants had to show a “justifiable need,” a higher bar that courts have interpreted to mean “specific threats” or “previous attacks.”

The Legislature is seeking a stay of the new rule pending the outcome of its lawsuit. An effort by attorneys for the Legislature to have the court rule immediately on a motion for a stay was denied last week.

A spokesman for the governor’s office declined to comment on the lawsuit Monday. But Christie said of the Legislature during a recent radio interview: “They’re wrong and we’ll fight them.”

Although lawmakers passed two resolutions to block the proposed change last year, as required by the state Constitution, the Christie administration contends the Legislature did not properly transmit the first resolution’s passage to the governor and the appropriate executive branch agencies.

Kelly: Chris Christie's obsession with guns

Christie goes around lawmakers to loosen gun carry rules

Attorneys for the Legislature said that lawmakers gave more than sufficient notice that the proposed rule was contrary to legislative intent.

The administration also contends that the two resolutions are "not substantially valid," citing a 1990 state Supreme Court case that centered on the question of whether employees of a private-security agency had a “preferred right” to obtain a permit to carry a gun by virtue of their work.

The court ruled that such employees did not have that preference under the law, arguing that the statutory standard calls for a permit to be issued only to applicants who can establish an "urgent necessity" of self-protection. But it said that standard could be met in the case of "serious threats," among other circumstances.

Democratic lawmakers and other groups have said the “serious threats” standard is too vague and would open the door to more guns on the streets and pose a risk to public safety.

"We fully support the Legislature’s position on this," said the Rev. Robert Moore, executive director of the Princeton-based Coalition for Peace Action. “The notion that having more people carry concealed weapons in our state is a fundamentally flawed idea. That makes us less safe not more safe.”

Gun groups, however, have long chafed under New Jersey’s gun laws, which are some of the strictest in the nation. They have argued that the previous standard to receive a permit to carry a handgun was almost impossible to meet.

“The Legislature’s taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the governor is fundamentally flawed and destined for failure," Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said in a statement. "New Jersey remains one of a handful of backward states that apparently prefer their citizens to become victims."

Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, added of the lawsuit: "We expect nothing less from statists who don't respect the sanctity of an individual's life and safety."

In documents filed as part of the process to amend the regulations, the Attorney General’s Office gave examples of the types of people who would be eligible for a permit to carry a handgun under the proposed rules.

“One such situation could be a taxi driver who works nights in a particular precinct where armed assailants recently and on multiple occasions had flagged down cabs at night and robbed and shot the drivers,” the Attorney General's Office wrote. “Another example of a serious but not specific threat may be where the applicant is an eyewitness to a murder committed by the member of a street gang that has engaged in systematic and dangerous witness intimidation and retaliation.”

When the revised gun carry regulations were proposed more than a year ago, proponents pointed to the fatal stabbing of a Berlin Township woman by her boyfriend as she waited for a gun permit to be approved.

Christie, for his part, has pardoned out-of-state residents charged with carrying a weapon illegally in New Jersey when they were legally allowed to carry a weapon in their own states.

Email: pugliese@northjersey.com