One gun a month schemes

M

maestro pistolero

New member
New Jersey is the latest to sign into law a one gun a month scheme. Although we may have bigger fish to fry, shall issue, etc., is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-L...6-New-Jersey-to-implement-rationing-of-rights
After literally years of effort, the powerful anti-gun forces in New Jersey politics have finally succeeded in passing a "one handgun per month" bill, which now heads to Governor Corzine's desk for his inevitable signature.
A measure sponsored by Senators Sandra Bolden Cunningham and Teresa Ruiz, which would prohibit the sale and purchase of more than one handgun per person, within a 30-day period was approved today by the full Senate by a vote of 21 to 15.
Unless I'm missing a state or two somewhere, that makes New Jersey the fourth to pass this kind of law (or fifth, if you count South Carolina, which repealed its version of the law in 2004, after finding it to be ineffective at reducing violent crime). The others that still have such a law are California (no surprise there, with it's Brady Campaign Number One Tyranny Rating), Maryland (again, no surprise, with Maryland ranking almost as "high" as California), and Virginia. The fact that Virginia is one of only three (soon to be four) states with such a law is probably a surprise to some. Virginia, after all, is blamed for having "lax gun laws" that contribute toward it being part of the so-called "Iron Pipeline" of guns that end up illegally in places like New York City.
 
Although we may have bigger fish to fry, shall issue, etc., is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?
Click to expand...
Yes and no respectively. :rolleyes: In fact, even if the court were to swing to the left, I still don't think this would withstand SCOTUS scrutiny. Reasons:

1) It's just about impossible to argue that this would have any measurable effect on crime because all anyone needs to commit most gun crimes is one gun.

2) This would have little effect on the overall number of guns in circulation because few people buy more than one gun a month anyway.

3) Law-abiding collectors and hunters are likely to have their activities curtailed by this law.

4) Criminals are highly unlikely to have their activities curtailed by this law because I'd surmise that very few crooks try to buy more than one handgun per month through legal channels. If the guns were bought under the table, only the stupidest and most bumbling criminal would be snared by the law because establishing purchase dates would be almost impossible.

5) People buying multiple guns for the purposes of starting an illegal under-the-table gun business are already breaking multiple existing federal laws that are highly unlikely to go away in the forseeable future.
 
I fail to see the reasoning behind these laws. What if you happen on the "One" gun you can't live without and need to complete your collection, but you bought one 4 weeks earlier?

There was also some web clip with R. Lee Ermey talking about the nonsensical nature of these laws. He was talking about how in California the limit was one new handgun a month, but there were no limits on the purchasing of used. You could buy four at the time if you wanted and everything cleared.
 
There was also some web clip with R. Lee Ermey talking about the nonsensical nature of these laws. He was talking about how in California the limit was one new handgun a month, but there were no limits on the purchasing of used. You could buy four at the time if you wanted
Click to expand...

Don't think that's quite right. I believe that if you hold a Class 03 C&R FFL and if you also have a CA Certificate of Eligibility, you are exempt from the one-a-month rule, whether for new or used. Otherwise, the one-a-month rule applies both to new and used handguns.
 
The clueless often argue that it is about preventing weapons trafficking across state lines.

But isn't that what all the laws and regulations prohibiting non ffl interstate transfers was supposed to prevent. It's already a felony to traffic weapons across state lines if you are committing two felonies (straw purchase and trafficking you're not going to care about a third one.

Since the criminals ignored those laws let's pass some more.
 
First, an answer to the OP's questions.

maestro pistolero said:
is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an infringement, but only if either the 3rd Circuit Court, which includes NJ, PA & DE, renders a decision incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment. As it stands now, the 2nd Amendment is enforceable only against the Federal Gov't and the states in the 9th Circuit (CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, AZ, NV, AK, HI) thanks to their incorporation via Nordyke.

If Scotus settles the incorporation issue, this should be a slam dunk to be overturned as prior restraint. Rights can be exercised "at will" by citizens -- you may speak, worship, assemble, and print literature as often as you wish and in broad manner of ways. Imagine your right to worship limited to once per month. Or your right to assemble peaceably. Your ability to exercise your RKBA is no different.

Ricky B. said:
Don't think that's quite right. I believe that if you hold a Class 03 C&R FFL and if you also have a CA Certificate of Eligibility, you are exempt from the one-a-month rule, whether for new or used. Otherwise, the one-a-month rule applies both to new and used handguns.
Click to expand...
That's not right either.
In California, you are limited to buying only one new gun per month. You can buy as many used guns (usually sold on consignment in shops) as you want. You can buy one new and six used ones in a month - not a problem.

For what it's worth dept...
The advertised purpose of one-gun-a-month laws is to reduce the number of "gun traffickers" (aka gun runners) who purchase multiple guns in less-restrictive State-A, then drive to anti-gun State-B to illegally sell them at a profit.

The problem is that when multiple guns are purchased, how do we know if it's Dirk Dirtbag buying four or five identical Hi-Point 9mm pistols to resell in another city this weekend -- or -- Disaster Dave buying those same Hi-Points to put into his "bug-out" bags for himself, his wife and teenage kids?
 
In California, you are limited to buying only one new gun per month.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Must be because guns lose so much effectiveness once they are used.

Got a citation to the law that specifies new only or a link?
 
As a resident of New Jersey (alas) I note that politicians use the "get tough on guns" smokescreen to divert attention away from more serious problems. Corzine is facing a tough reelection fight, he has to rally his base.
 
Ricky B,

From Cal-DOJ's website.

Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
While no limitation exists for the number of handguns that you may own,you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Handgun transactions related to law enforcement, private party transfers, returns to owners, and certain other specific circumstances are exempt from the one-handgun-per-30-day limit.
(PC section 12072(a)(9))
Click to expand...

The 1/month limitation applies only to guns bought from an FFL dealer as a new gun. Since CA requires private sales to be processed through an FFL, these are deemed "private party transfers" regardless if you and I meet to make the sale or if the sale is a consignment sale through the FFL.

For more information, see the text of 12072 here.
 
BillCA is not 100% correct - you can buy multiple new longguns in a month, but handguns are limited to one per 30 days, out of (non-consignment) dealer inventory.

California Penal Code 12072 said:
(9) (A) No person shall make an application to purchase more than
one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed
upon the person within any 30-day period.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any of the following:
(i) Any law enforcement agency.
(ii) Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties.

(iii) Any state or local correctional facility.
(iv) Any private security company licensed to do business in
California.
<etcetcetc>
(viii) Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms
dealer pursuant to Section 12082.
Click to expand...

Section 12082 deals with private-party transfers.
 
Last edited:
If only new guns are restricted by the law, then its only purpose would seem to be to slow the flow of firearms into the hands of people not disqualified from owning them. That would seem to be a prima facia infringement, would it not?
 
This doesn't seem to bad, limiting firearm purchasing to once a month might actually increase availability of firearms and reduce the cost. In a broad spectrum, you'd have more of a chance to buy a firearm that otherwise might have been purchased.

I am glad lawmakers are not the brightest bunch otherwise they would have figured out how to eleminate firearms by now.

Just cut ammo supply, thats not guaranteed in the constitution, you can bear all the arms you want but cut the ammo the gun is worthless.
 
This doesn't seem to bad, limiting firearm purchasing to once a month might actually increase availability of firearms and reduce the cost. In a broad spectrum, you'd have more of a chance to buy a firearm that otherwise might have been purchased.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that work? Since very few people buy more than one gun a month now, in fact most won't buy more than one per year, it would have almost zero effect on supply and demand.

I am glad lawmakers are not the brightest bunch otherwise they would have figured out how to eleminate firearms by now.
Click to expand...
It's not their dubious intelligence that prevents firearms elimination, it's the constitution.

Just cut ammo supply, thats not guaranteed in the constitution, you can bear all the arms you want but cut the ammo the gun is worthless.
Click to expand...

In the same way that government can't require you to keep your firearm locked in such a way as to prevent it's immediate use, denying ammo would be denying the right to keep and bear for self defense or any other lawful purpose. Heller vs DC said that policy option is off the table.
 
BillCA, do you agree that used guns sold out of the dealer's inventory (i.e., not on consignment) are subject to the one-a-month rule?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top