NJ Court says 2A does not give right to own handgun

Waterengineer · October 31, 2009, 08:54 PM

While I understand the NJ courts position, the play seems political in the fact it was decided before the Supremes decide the three 2A cases in front of them. I expect this also will be incorporated or be stand alone in front of the Supremes. Either way, one more attempt to limit personal liberties.

From the article:

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.

The article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10...y5440647.shtml

jontz · October 31, 2009, 09:01 PM

Doesn't surpise me at all. In the face of gun rights being "forced" on a state, the anti's fall back position is that 2A only applies to militia style weapons, eg rifles, thus handguns are still illegal. It's a stupid, sorry defence, but there it is...

**Tom Servo** · October 31, 2009, 09:09 PM

Just playing devil's advocate here, but consider their position.

New Jersey is historically hostile towards gun rights. It makes little sense for the courts there to suddenly break with precedent in anticipation of a case that hasn't even been heard yet.

So, they toe the line for now. Their political bedfellows are happy, they look like they're doing their part to "stop the violence," and by next June, nobody will remember that they were opposed.

They had more reasons (aside from those pesky civil rights) to rule against the idea of incorporating the 2A than they do to rule for it.

In any case, we just have to hold out a bit longer, and much of this will likely be swept away.

RDak · November 1, 2009, 06:42 AM

Yes Tom, but imagine how it must be for pro-gunners who live in NJ. I feel very bad for them and for those pro-gunners living in similar places.

It infuriates me that honest law-abiding individuals have to live under such draconian laws.

Plus, it is equally infuriating that, in those draconian anti-gun areas, the local political machines are some of the most corrupt political enclaves this country has ever known.

MTT TL · November 1, 2009, 08:02 AM

That is not what the ruling really said.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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."

The problem was that the police chief denied the permit without due process. This was reversed.

Bartholomew Roberts · November 1, 2009, 11:04 AM

Even if the Second had been incorporated, there still isn't any ruling saying that licensing or other measures are unconstitutional.... which would have led to the same result as this case - reversed lower court decision with an order to issue the license.

Despite the lack of the New Jersey court to incorporate the Second Amendment, this was still a win for gun rights. The applicant had his permit denied without any reason or cause given by the police chief. This denial was inexplicably upheld by the trial court, who didn't even hear testimony or anything from the police chief. Fortunately the higher court corrected this and reversed the lower court as well as issuing an order to give him the permit.

October 31, 2009, 08:54 PM	#1
Waterengineer Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2006 Location: Aurora, CO and Palm Beach, FL Posts: 863	NJ Court says 2A does not give right to own handgun While I understand the NJ courts position, the play seems political in the fact it was decided before the Supremes decide the three 2A cases in front of them. I expect this also will be incorporated or be stand alone in front of the Supremes. Either way, one more attempt to limit personal liberties. From the article: 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. The article: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10...y5440647.shtml

October 31, 2009, 09:01 PM	#2
jontz Senior Member Join Date: October 14, 2009 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 144	Doesn't surpise me at all. In the face of gun rights being "forced" on a state, the anti's fall back position is that 2A only applies to militia style weapons, eg rifles, thus handguns are still illegal. It's a stupid, sorry defence, but there it is... __________________ Sig Mosquito Sig P228 Bersa Thunder 380

October 31, 2009, 09:09 PM	#3
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Just playing devil's advocate here, but consider their position. New Jersey is historically hostile towards gun rights. It makes little sense for the courts there to suddenly break with precedent in anticipation of a case that hasn't even been heard yet. So, they toe the line for now. Their political bedfellows are happy, they look like they're doing their part to "stop the violence," and by next June, nobody will remember that they were opposed. They had more reasons (aside from those pesky civil rights) to rule against the idea of incorporating the 2A than they do to rule for it. In any case, we just have to hold out a bit longer, and much of this will likely be swept away. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

November 1, 2009, 06:42 AM	#4
RDak Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 734	Yes Tom, but imagine how it must be for pro-gunners who live in NJ. I feel very bad for them and for those pro-gunners living in similar places. It infuriates me that honest law-abiding individuals have to live under such draconian laws. Plus, it is equally infuriating that, in those draconian anti-gun areas, the local political machines are some of the most corrupt political enclaves this country has ever known.

November 1, 2009, 11:04 AM	#6
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Even if the Second had been incorporated, there still isn't any ruling saying that licensing or other measures are unconstitutional.... which would have led to the same result as this case - reversed lower court decision with an order to issue the license. Despite the lack of the New Jersey court to incorporate the Second Amendment, this was still a win for gun rights. The applicant had his permit denied without any reason or cause given by the police chief. This denial was inexplicably upheld by the trial court, who didn't even hear testimony or anything from the police chief. Fortunately the higher court corrected this and reversed the lower court as well as issuing an order to give him the permit.