| NJ Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply in State | | Print | |
| Written by James Heiser | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 30 October 2009 00:00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the CBSNews.com article “N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns”, 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 U.S. Supreme Court is considering the case of McDonald v. Chicago, and the ruling which the Justices render in that case will certainly have an impact on the future of Second Amendment rights in every State of the Union. The alarming fact is that the applicability of the Second Amendment to the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms is facing a fundamental challenge in the wake of the Heller decision. A "right" which only exists when the government gives you permission to exercise that right is not a "right" at all. 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." Thus the Dubov case has proven thus far to have the opposite effect of the Heller: Heller affirmed the right to keep and bear arms, but allowed for ordinances that largely functionally deprived citizens of the District of Columbia to exercise that right. Dubov’s case appears to dangerously challenge the constitutional basis of the right, but then awarded Dubov the necessary bureaucratic permit giving him permission to exercise his rights.
Set as favorite
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (14)
Flu-Bird
said:
|
New Jersey ratified the United States Constitution on December 18, 1787 — in fact, it was the third state to do so — but an appeals court has determined that that does not necessarily mean that the state must uphold the rights guaranteed by that Constitution.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed |
Judicial ignorance So even after the U.S. SUPEUM COURT has ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment this bunch of incometent judges says it dont apply to the state If they can read what the 2nd amendment says then they should all resign in disgrace |
Ex-Jersey
said:
 |
... The Heller case didn't permit SCOTUS to decide on incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th and apply it to the states. McDonald will rectify that. NJ's gun laws are actually on life support right now just from Heller invalidating the lower federal cases where the "state's right" and "collective right" theories were hatched in 1942. Since Jersey has no RKBA provision in its constitution, it never developed any sophisticated state case law supporting their schemes . . . They just lazily relied on those lower federal cases now rendered moot. McDonald will pull the plug once and for all, including the permit / registration at issue in this case being reported on. This Constitutional ship will be suddenly righted by June of next year and the leftist anti-gunners better have a firm grip on the railing or they are getting tossed overboard! |
Rick
said:
 |
... The three judges need to read the writings of those who created the Constitution. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. But then I belive they do but do not care, as they, in their arrogance, think they know what's best for us 'astroturfers.' Thousands of citizens are now doing time in prison for being convicted of violating unconstitutional gun laws. I would hope a group of them would get together and sue their states for violating their civil rights. |
JDmysticDJ
said:
 |
Interpretation The Constitution is similar to the Bible, in that people interpret both documents according to their personal bias.' We had Supreme Court Justices, who's entire judicial histories were based on the concept of States Rights, denying the right of the State of Florida to hold a recount, there-by determining the outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election. Do people who are strict interpreters of the 2nd Amendment (As I am) also support a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? How do they feel about the creation of free speech zones, by the Bush Administration? Are they upset about the fact that people were ejected from the Congressional galery for wearing T-shirts with political statements? Are they concerned about WTO and G-20 protesters being attacked by the police while exercising their 1st Amendment Rights? How do they feel about the right to privacy provisions in the Constitution (That many interpret as guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion)? How about the 14th amendment, which some say applies to Gay Rights. Is everyone familiar with the Dread Scott Case? Clearly, the Supreme Court has been, and will continue to be influenced by Judicial Activism, from all sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the Constitution has lost its Authority, regarding judicial matters. As for me; I'm planning to negotiate with defense contractors regarding the installation of a nuclear missile delivery system in my back yard. |
Captain Gabe
said:
 |
People need to wake up If the 2nd amendment becomes included in the "incorporation" of the other amendments (via the 14th amendment) then the federal government becomes the arbiter of all gun laws. Pushing the 2nd amendment against the states would be a short term victory as someone has to make firearms policy. Felons will never be allowed to own them, full-automatics will still be tightly controlled, etc. If restrictive power is prohibited to the states, you know who's going to be making policy nationwide. |
Rick
said:
 |
... I was born in that hell hole state. I left 50 yrs ago and never looked back.All but one of my relitives have left too.We prefer to live as free citizens in our adopted states rather than subjects in that den corruption. Those judges mentioned in this story wouldn't know the law if it bit them, everything they do is political for their democratic bosses. |
Florida Warren
said:
 |
Hey don't bash New Jersey! Quote from Rick: "I was born in that hell hole state. I left 50 yrs ago and never looked back.All but one of my relitives have left too.We prefer to live as free citizens in our adopted states rather than subjects in that den corruption. Those judges mentioned in this story wouldn't know the law if it bit them, everything they do is political for their democratic bosses." Sure, the politics there are messed up, but as a native New Jerseyan "in exile" there is much about my home state I miss, too. Where else can yo go to a diner at 3 am for a Taylor ham and egg sandwich on a hard roll? Or go to the corner bakery on Sunday morning for a crumb cake? Or get decent pizza? Or have people know what you're talking about when you say: "Maddone! What a scootch!" Or live among people who know that biscotti is pronounced "bis-CAUGHT-tea" and not "bis-Scotty"? And that the cheese they put on pizza is called "moot-za-RELL"? And where pizzerias are actually owned by real Italians, not WASPs who don't know "moot-za-rell" from Cheez Whiz? It may be political hell but it's cultural heaven!  |
Paladin
said:
 |
14th Amendment is Legal Quackery! The 14th Amendment is and never was needed to "incorporate" the BOR against the individual states. The original text of the US Constitution contained language "incorporating" it entirely against the states. Simply read Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 and Section VI. You know phrases like, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." And, "This Constitution,..., shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...." Plus, all the States were required to "ratify" the US Constitution. Why be required to ratify something if you're NOT being required to comply with it? If SCOTUS rules against incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, it will have to go against all the other incorporation cases it has decided the last century or so. And, it will be prima facie evidence of Judicial Activism on the nation's highest court (oh, we already have evidence of that don't we!). The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than legal quackery perpetrated by corrupt judges so they could rationalize their violation of both the US Constitution and their Oaths to uphold it as the "supreme law of the land." They ALL deserve to be drug from their courtrooms and tar and feathered every Saturday morning in the town square. And the Justice system has the power to punish citizens for "contempt of court"? My question is, "Just how the hell can any Freedom-loving American have anything but contempt for our courts these days." |
Diamondback
said:
 |
Legal Quackery is RIGHT! Here's one example that thoroughly ticks me off! The First Amendment MAY be the ONE amendment that was not intended to apply against the States. The reason is that it starts off, "Congress shall make no law ...." It is my understanding that SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the 1st Amendment IS incorporated against the States. If the courts are NOT corrupt, how can they logically and with integrity, rule that an amendment beginning with, "Congress shall make no law..." IS "incorporated against the states" but one that contains the phrase, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is NOT? The "real" answer is they CAN'T!!! Nex ut Tyrannus! |
Leif Rakur
said:
 |
... Rick's Jefferson quote: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Unless you can quote words from state constitutions that actually said it was a DUTY of individuals to be “at all times armed,” it's most reasonable to conclude that Jefferson was referring to the right and duty of the people as a political society with a militia, not to individual persons. |
Jim Eckland
said:
 |
... What does the New Jersey Constitution say about the right to possess firearms? |
Dan
said:
 |
... None of the founding fathers would be eligible to own a gun in New Jersey because they were all in favor of violently overthrowing the government(King George III). America exists because we violently overthrew our government. Are any of us, as Americans, eligible to carry firearms in New Jersey? Not according to the New Jersey Supreme Court. |
Jarhead1982
said:
 |
Then again..... The US Supreme Court as a rule only looks at the one issue for review, even while considering the variables or surrounding circumstances that truly affect the issue under review, ruling only on the one issue presented. That is the way the system works, one step at a time, and to be discouraged because this particular case wont rescind the cummaltive 75 plus years of gun control efforts in one fell swoop isnt realistic. However, there is annually, a bill put forth in US Congress, a bill that is very simple and straight forward in that it puts upon ANY bill or act to be proposed for consideration, that it meet one standing requirement, that it not violate ANY of the US Constitutional rights or controls on government. You want to put a whole sale beat down on unconstitutional gun control laws present and attempted in the future, then reserach this bill, and get your congress to support its ratification. Then we would have a major step towards controlling the Napoleonic tendencies so many of these small fiefdoms, municipalities, or states have by their continued selectively and gradual imposing of their uber ultra and ineffective gun controls. |
Granny
said:
 |
... Yak Yak Yak to all. Nobody has even mentioned the BUCK ACT! ... Opps, yes a few of you did. It would be the 14th amendment. AND UCC Title 4 (the last half) Just read the story of the buck act PLEASE... and U.S.P.S Zone In Provment that would be ZIP CODE AND Read about FEMA REGIONS. And there are TWO PLACES that talk about the flag. The Consitition and UCC title 4 READ THIS ! Luv from Granny. |
