(NJ) Gun groups challenge N.J. assault-weapons law

Oatka

New member
STORY
By Joseph A. Slobodzian, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Gun enthusiasts challenged New Jersey's 11-year-old restriction on military-style assault weapons in federal appeals court yesterday, claiming the law violated the right of sportsmen to associate and exposed them to unforeseen criminal prosecutions.

New Jersey's law - considered one of the nation's toughest - is so vague and "overbroad" that it is almost meaningless, Stephen P. Halbrook, the lawyer for the gun owners, told the three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

"There is no way [for state officials] to monitor this law," Halbrook said, adding that it left law-abiding assault-weapon owners at the whim of a county prosecutor's decision to file criminal charges.

But New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Michael J. Williams argued that the law had proved itself since Gov. Jim Florio signed it in 1990.

"This was a legitimate legislative response to the clear danger that assault weapons pose to New Jersey citizens," Williams added.

Williams said his office urges local prosecutors to evaluate possible criminal cases individually and remain open to the arguments of legitimate gun enthusiasts.

The judges listened for about 35 minutes before holding the case for further review.

The Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, two South Jersey gun retailers, and two gun manufacturers sued the state in 1996 over the assault-weapons law, which bans the sale and ownership of 37 models of semiautomatic firearms and others that are "substantially identical."

Basically, the law covers weapons that have detachable magazines with more than 15 bullets and semiautomatic shotguns that hold more than six cartridges.

The law's only exception lets people own such weapons if they show they are sport shooters who belong to and fire the weapon at a gun club.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez dismissed the lawsuit in April 1999, leading to yesterday's appeal.

Halbrook focused his arguments on two areas - the law's purported ambiguity, and the provision requiring gun club membership. He said the law's definitions could result in the banning of newer gun models, and the prosecution of gun owners, which was not intended when the law was enacted.

Nor was there any way for the state to ensure that purchasers of assault weapons maintained their gun-club memberships after acquiring the firearms, Halbrook added.

He urged the judges to follow the lead of the Sixth Circuit, which in 1998 invalidated a similar assault-weapons ban in Columbus, Ohio.

Halbrook also argued that the law violated gun owners' First Amendment right of free association by requiring them to belong to a gun club to legally own an assault weapon. Many gun-club members are supporters of President-elect George W. Bush or are National Rifle Association members, he said, and some assault-weapon enthusiasts may not agree with their political views.

That argument drew skeptical questioning from the appeals judges.

"There are all kinds of gun clubs," said Judge Jane R. Roth. "A member doesn't have to belong to the NRA."

Joseph A. Slobodzian's e-mail address is jslobodzian@phillynews.com
 
"Basically, the law covers weapons that have detachable magazines with more than 15 bullets and semiautomatic shotguns that hold more than six cartridges.

The law's only exception lets people own such weapons if they show they are sport shooters who belong to and fire the weapon at a gun club."

Unless there has been a recent court ruling that I am unaware of, this statement is a lie. I've just searched through my copy of Jersey law, and I find no exemption for sport shooters or gun club members. If this where the truth, then I could own any pre-ban I wanted, and all the full capacity mags my little heart desired. The only way you can legally posses a banned firearm in Jersey, is to either have registered it prior to May 30, 1991, or to have rendered it inoperable prior to that date. Under Section 2C:58-5, one may apply for a license to purchase a banned weapon, but you must show "just cause", which in NJ means "you ain't getting one".

Looks like just another attempt make gun owners look like fanatics, trying to overturn "reasonable" laws.
 
The value of writing the reporters . . .

I took part of Gusgus' post (Unless there has been . . .), added a few remarks of my own, and wrote Mr. Slobodzian.

This is the pertinent part of his reply I received today:

"Thanks for taking the time to write about the article on the New Jersey assault weapons ban. I based my story on the oral argument and exchanges between the lawyers in this appeal and the three judges.

No one in court suggested reading the law the way you do. I will check out the text, as you suggested and if you're right I'll clarify the explanation the next time I write about the case.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention."

I thanked him for his reasoned reply and said that one way I judge whether a reporter has an agenda or not is how they reply, if ever, to a comment about their article.

It looks like he at least has an open mind.

And, in a related manner - corrected the "Gun Show loophole" comment in an otherwise useful website, this reply to my correction:
"Thank you for your e-mail. Yes, we've been e-mailed about that error before; see older e-mail and result below (we added a clause that the gun-show loophole applied only in private transactions). It's been corrected already on
http://issues2001.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm but has not yet propagated to the URL you specified. Thanks for your attentiveness -- viewer e-mails are our main source of editing."

Occasionally, the squeaking wheel gets, if not greased, at least a shot of WD-40. ;)
 
Oatka,
I very surprised by the response. The Philadelphia Inquire is in the same league as the New York Times and the Washington Post. It's encouraging to know that they have at least ONE reporter, that "professes" the desire to be accurate. I guess his follow up article will show if he's sincere or not.
 
A follow-up to the follow-up

Joe seems like a pretty decent and professional man.

His reply to my reply to . . .

"Thanks for your additional comments and the compliment. Like everyone, I have personal opinions on a great many subjects (too many, some say). But as someone who makes his living by the First Amendment, I also believe there
are many sides (often most of them valid) to every argument. What I try to do in reporting about the federal courts is to be accurate and fair and get the different views of the principals into the article.

Responses such as yours help widen my knowledge and provide a context for future stories I cover."

Check that last sentence out folks. Maybe, just maybe we can score a few points now and then.
 
Gusgus,

The NJ CCW permit system says the same thing I think??? I know NJ residents are techincally allowed to "own" machine guns, but it has

"No license shall be issued unless the applicant would qualify for a Permit to Carry and the court finds "that the public safety and welfare so require." The license is valid for one year, unless otherwise provided by the court. The court may also attach such conditions and limitations to the license as it deems to be in the public interest."

So seeing this wouldn't that law violate the 14th amendment??? As it creates a "separate class" of special people that are allowed to obtain these permits (read government higher-ups or 'well connected persons')

---Reference---

Article XIV.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---


Any Legal Types that have any comments on this PLEASE comment :D
 
for a good book on current nj firearms law visit www,evannappen.com . i recommend it for anyone living in nj or planning to move to nj the latter is something i don't.
 
Dead,
It violates the BOR in more areas than just the 14th. There are approximately 1,000 CCW permit holders in NJ. CCW holders are made up of ex-LEO, and a who's who's list of the rich and powerful. The way you show "just cause" in this state, is to make a large donation to a powerful Judge's campaign fund. So, I don't pass the "just cause" test.

So, what's the answer? Vote in Republicans? Well, we did that in '93, as they promised to overturn Florio's AW ban. Eight years later, we still have the AW ban, Standard Capacity Magazine Ban, and Hollow Point Ban. For the last couple of years, the Republican run Senate, with Whitman's blessing, has introduced, and passed, a "smart gun" law. Thankfully, the powers that be, in the House, have not allowed it to come up for a vote, and the last couple of years, it has died in comity. If it ever makes it to the floor, Jersey will require "electronic" hand guns within 3 years. My business is here, and my, and my wife's entire family is here, but "smart guns" would be the last straw.

Even though some think Jersey is hopeless, at least for now, I'm staying, and fighting the good fight.
 
In NJ there have been various "wins" for the Pro-Freedom people... We just need to bring it home on all fronts! :)
 
Back
Top