Good news from NEW JERSEY!

Number 6

Moderator
Who would expect intelligent thought regarding firearms from NJ?

NJ Court Recognizes Second Amendment,
HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW

In a landmark written opinion filed February 27, a New Jersey Superior Court recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen’s Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

“The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long overdue,” said ANJRPC Regional Vice President and attorney Evan F. Nappen, who represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. In the appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.

This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of Columbia case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.

“The legal significance of the Second Amendment is finally being recognized by American courts,” Nappen continued, “and this New Jersey case is part of a growing trend in American jurisprudence.”

In the New Jersey case, the appellant was denied re-issuance of his Firearms Purchaser ID card based on his consent to relinquish firearms seized in a domestic dispute in 2000. In 2004, New Jersey enacted a law barring Firearms Purchaser ID cards to any person whose firearms have been seized and not returned.

The Honorable John H. Pursel, J.S.C. held that the statute did not apply and the Firearms Purchaser ID card should be issued because the appellant did not know that his prior consent to relinquish his firearms would subject him to permanent loss of his Second Amendment rights under the 2004 law.

The ruling states in key part:

“Fundamental fairness is a doctrine to be sparingly applied. It is appropriately applied in those rare cases where not to do so will subject the defendant to oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation.” Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), citing State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679, 712, 563 A.2d 1 (1989) (Garibaldi, J., concurring and dissenting). Egregious deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.

Additionally, it is clear that in consenting to the disposition of the weapons seized as a result of the temporary restraining order, the applicant did not intend to waive his right to bear arms as provided by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He therefore could not have knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waived that right.” (Emphasis added.)

The full text of the opinion is available here: http://www.evannappen.com/lawupdate1gunbook/pdfs/peterson.pdf

The Warren County Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal in the case.
 
WHOA...I need to sit down. I guess rational thought and common sense still exists on PA and NY dumping grounds.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
WHOA...I need to sit down. I guess rational thought and common sense still exists on PA and NY dumping grounds.

Thats funny, I know someone who bought a home in a new NJ developement. I think base price was like 350K. After some research, we found the area is an old landfill.
 
HAHA, musta been in Southern Jersey then. Cause my family has one of those 500,000 dollar homes too! Great place, South Jersey... ugh. I miss it!:(
 
Thats funny, I know someone who bought a home in a new NJ developement. I think base price was like 350K. After some research, we found the area is an old landfill.

That is not surprising. The "Garden" State abounds in housing developments built upon refuse...along with superfund sites. It`s such a great place to live.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
NukeCop, you got that right. South Jersey is nothing like the north. Soprano country is pretty accurate and the north is really just an extension of NYC. Us southerners would just as soon be part of Pa. or Delaware, or better yet, the 51st state.
 
Not wanting to detract from the landfill discussion; but what, if any, effect would this ruling have on the Lautenberg Act? Here is the key phraseology in the decision:

Egregious deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.

Now, take that to:

Egregious deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor at a time when it was impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.
 
NukeCop, you got that right. South Jersey is nothing like the north. Soprano country is pretty accurate and the north is really just an extension of NYC. Us southerners would just as soon be part of Pa. or Delaware, or better yet, the 51st state.

+3 I hate the damn state.
I've bought a few EBR's while in ND but I have to get rid of them before I go home. I'm gonna get right on that....:rolleyes:
 
applesanity

Strange. Like the D.C. case, I see no mention of the NRA. Or maybe I'm missing something here.

Another swipe at the NRA, I see.

Maybe they weren't in NJ, but the NRA was here in my home state of Washington last month, helping to defeat Senate Bill 5197.

SB5197 was a measure aimed directly at private firearm sales. It would have mandated that all firearms sold at gun shows be transferred through a federally licensed dealer, thereby imposing dealer restrictions on private individuals who are not dealers. This would have established a gun tax on firearms, and effectively halted handgun sales at gun shows.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent big bucks backing SB5197. Thankfully, they were defeated one more time. But, they'll be back next year. Hopefully, so will the NRA.
 
The NRA is deliberately keeping a low profile in these cases. In the first place, the NRA is not a law firm; it cannot represent gun owners in court, even its members. Second, the NRA can't file suit on its own behalf, because it has suffered no damage as an organization; the NRA was not denied a handgun in DC or an ID card in NJ. Thirdly, the mere presence of the NRA may evoke negative reactions on the part of a judge; they want the rulings to be on the interpretation of the constitution, not on whether the judge likes or does not like the NRA.

The NRA did sign up as amicus curiae in the Parker case, as did the Brady Campaign, but that is as far as either went as organizations.

Jim
 
Back
Top