Off Topic Cafe If it doesn't belong in any of the other forums. Post all Off Topic stuff here.

N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:03 AM
  #1  
Visionz's Avatar
Thread Starter
Administrator
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 23,226
Likes: 9
From: Upstate NY
Vehicle: 2010 Genesis 2.0T
Default N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns

QUOTE
A New Jersey appeals court has concluded that Americans have no Second Amendment right to buy a handgun.

In a case decided last week, the superior court upheld a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.

That outcome might seem like something of a surprise, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in the D.C. v. Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

But New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Stephen Skillman wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that Heller "has no impact upon the constitutionality of" the state law.

That's because, Skillman said, the Supreme Court did not strike down the District of Columbia's de facto handgun ban but instead simply ordered the city to issue a permit. In other words, while Americans may have the right in general to possess arms, the exact contours of that right have not been mapped, especially as the Second Amendment applies to state laws. (The court's majority opinion last year said: "We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.")

Look for the Supreme Court to revisit this question in a few months when it hears a case called McDonald v. Chicago. It's a constitutional challenge to Chicago's restrictive gun laws, which prohibit anyone from possessing firearms -- even in their homes -- "unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm."

New Jersey's laws are similar. They say: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder... has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section."

Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.

What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.

Oddly, the trial judge upheld that denial, without asking the police chief to testify to explain himself (another violation of state law) and after taking the unusual step of contacting Dubov's previous employers to ask about his background.

Dubov's attorney, Michael Nieschmidt, argued that the state licensing scheme was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated the Second Amendment.

Skillman concluded that while the Second Amendment doesn't apply, state law and precedent nevertheless required that Dubov receive more due process than he did. The appeals court wrote: "Accordingly, the trial court's affirmance of the police chief's denial of appellant's application for a firearms purchase permit is reversed, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing in conformity with this opinion."
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 09:26 AM
  #2  
HotBlue02's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 1
From: Sacramento, CA
Vehicle: 02 Hyundai Accent
Default

Make the world a better place, punch New Jersey in the face
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 11:16 AM
  #3  
187sks's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
Default



Seems odd that states are not allowed to infringe on other constitutionally guaranteed rights, but they sure seem to think that they can walk all over the 2nd Amendment.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 12:21 PM
  #4  
Bullfrog's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 0
From: Western PA
Vehicle: 2001 Tiburon
Default

turn uncle ted lose in NJ!!!
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 02:34 PM
  #5  
Goldie97's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: Marlton, NJ
Vehicle: 2002 Hyundai Sonata LX
Default

they're not saying you can't buy them, OR own them, you just have to have the proper permit and make sure the seller isn't doing it illegally. i don't really think anyone other than law enforcement or the military needs AK-47's and some idiot 17 year old who buys it off the internet SHOULD get in trouble for it. if you're a hunter and use a hunting rifle for it, you'll get a permit no problem. same thing with a small handgun for protection purposes, you can get a permit no prob. it's talking about people who buys uzi's off a dude from the back of a truck, obviously illegal not to mention rediculous
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 02:50 PM
  #6  
187sks's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
Default

Uzi's and AK-47's aren't illegal unless they're fully automatic. Buying them out of the back of a truck also isn't illegal in most states if it's from a private seller. It is illegal to buy a firearm off of the internet also unless it is shipped to a FFL dealer to transfer it to you. In most states it's illegal for a 17 year old to buy a firearm of any kind. All purchases through FFl dealers (all gun stores, pawn shops, or any other store that sells guns) has to pass through the feds which do a background check on you.

The problem with permitting is twofold. One, owning firearms is a right in the united States, as declared in the Constitution. You shouldn't need a permit for free speech, or any other right. That is different from something like driving, which is a privilege. Two, permitting and registration leads to confiscation. If it doesn't happen here, we would be the first case. I don't like those odds.

The American people are the military force keeping America free from invaders and from tyrannical government. The Japanese decided not to invade the US based solely on the amount of firearms in the hands of the private population.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 09:33 PM
  #7  
faithofadragon's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,533
Likes: 0
From: tacos
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
Default

why does it matter?

we all know that it was a dolphin and a while that bombed hiroshima
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2009 | 01:25 AM
  #8  
i8acobra's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
Default

Yes, you do need permits to use other rights. Freedom of Assembly? Last time I checked, almost every major city requires you to get a permit to hold any kind of large assembly.

According to the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". So why can't felons own guns? There's no "felon" exception to the Second Amendment. You Cannot say that you should not have to get a permit unless you also believe felons should be allowed to own guns. It's either a right or a privilege. It can't be both.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2009 | 04:00 AM
  #9  
187sks's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
Default

Permits to assemble are to assemble on city (or other jurisdiction) property. It's not the assembly that needs a permit, it's using their property that needs a permit. If I had permission from the land owner and 10 acres of vacant land I do not need a permit to assemble even a very large group there in most cases, and in cases that you do I believe it's unconstitutional. Just because you have a right does not mean that it can be practiced in every location, people cannot assemble on my property without my permission for example.

When convicted of certain crimes you can lose certain rights. That is generally accepted to be true and reasonable without turning the definition to a privilege. For example, the act of incarceration itself takes away many of your rights. These rights are not absolute rights (above any restrictions or conditions), but they're still rights. You don't have to earn a right, you're born with it. Rights can be lost because of your actions, but not taken away without just cause. The general population also should not need to pay for a permit to exercise any right.

Rights are not given to us by the government, they're ours to begin with. The government serves the people and derives it's limited power from the people. It is, in no situation, the government's role to interfere with the rights of people who have not had their rights revoked.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2009 | 10:27 AM
  #10  
i8acobra's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
Default

QUOTE (187sks @ Nov 7 2009, 03:00 AM)
Permits to assemble are to assemble on city (or other jurisdiction) property. It's not the assembly that needs a permit, it's using their property that needs a permit.


It doesn't belong to the city, it belongs to the people. That's the definition of "public". The principal that allows the city or state to require you to get a permit to assemble is the same principal that allows them to require you to get a permit for a firearm. They can't stop you from assembling or owning a firearm, but they can require you to pay the costs associated with your assembly or firearm ownership through a permitting process.

QUOTE (187sks @ Nov 7 2009, 03:00 AM)
When convicted of certain crimes you can lose certain rights.


Where is that exception noted in the Constitution? I don't see any provision for revoking rights of any class of person.
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM.