New Jersey: Court says Americans have no right to buy handguns

GGReporter · 10-30-2009, 07:32 AM

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.

More...

nostraboys · 10-31-2009, 07:27 PM

Why do the courts and polititians want LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to be disarmed? Polititians are protected by guns. We don't have the option of the secret service protecting us while we go somewhere. If they want to outlaw weapons the secret service should give theirs up. Maybe that will change their minds.

wideym · 10-31-2009, 08:17 PM

Actually the court did not say Americans have no right to buy handguns, just Americans who live in New Jersey.

I'd expect it to be overturned by the Supremes, if it actually goes that far. Many people just decide against going to court once they find out the costs and headaches involved.

GlockMeister · 10-31-2009, 11:10 PM

It shouldn't even get to the Supreme court as the decision in the Heller v. D.C. case should be evidence enough they/we do. Even in N.J....

They'll keep taking it to the courts, including the Supreme court until they get the decision they want. The anti-gunners that is,,,

Cyrano · 10-31-2009, 11:45 PM

Glockmeister, as the professional gun writers keep saying, DC vs. Heller does confirm our inalienable, absolute right to keep and bear arms - on Federal lands and enclaves. The decision does not extend to state and municipalities. Perhaps Justice Scalia felt that because of the incorporation aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment he did not need to explicitly state, "This right applies everywhere in the United States of America, including all fifty states, all counties and all cities and smaller municipalities." But for whatever reason, he did not spell out our right to keep and bear arms in words so plain his intentions are unmistakable and unassailable. That's why McDonald vs. Chicago is to be argued early next year. Building on the principles Scalia outlined in Heller, the NRA and a citizen of the City of Chicago are suing the city over its gun ban laws.

If we the honest gun owners of America win McDonald, while we won't have put a stake through the heart of the anti-gun movement in America we'll at least have hosed it down with holy water, jammed it into its coffin filled with socialist graveyard dirt and nailed the lid down. Personally, even with the unwise Latina woman on the Court I don't see how we can lose this case, with the precedent of Heller on the books. If the decision, which won't be announced until summer 2010, does go our way the fight won't be over. The anti-gunners will try to make it look like the municipalities are complying while using the "reasonable restrictions" exclusion Scalia wrote about to maintain the status quo of de facto civil disarmament.

That in turn might be stamped out by Heller versus DC, in which Richard Heller is suing the District of Columbia again over their refusal in fact to comply with Heller's requirements as laid down by Justice Scalia. Heller II if decided our way might well define what are the restrictions considered "reasonable," and what form cities' compliance must take.

We are going to have to practice constant vigilance. Unless we can get a ruling from the Supreme Court that explicitly says what our gun rights are, and that they are to be left alone by both the Congress and lower governments (fat chance!), the anti-gunners will never give up. Short of a revolution and a new Constitution that specifically says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute and individual; and shall not be infringed by any Federal, state, county or municipal law, regulation, order, ordinance or decree," we the honest shooters of America are not going to see this issue settled in our favor in our lifetimes.

10-30-2009, 07:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,271	New Jersey: 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. More...

10-31-2009, 07:27 PM	#2
nostraboys Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lake Winnipesaukee Posts: 426	Why do the courts and polititians want LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to be disarmed? Polititians are protected by guns. We don't have the option of the secret service protecting us while we go somewhere. If they want to outlaw weapons the secret service should give theirs up. Maybe that will change their minds. __________________ "To disarm the people was the best and most effectual way to enslave them" G. Mason 1788

10-31-2009, 11:10 PM	#4
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 9,676	It shouldn't even get to the Supreme court as the decision in the Heller v. D.C. case should be evidence enough they/we do. Even in N.J.... They'll keep taking it to the courts, including the Supreme court until they get the decision they want. The anti-gunners that is,,, __________________ "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." "Edmond Burke" Last edited by GlockMeister; 11-02-2009 at 02:20 AM.

10-31-2009, 08:17 PM	#3
wideym Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma/Arkansas border Posts: 117	Actually the court did not say Americans have no right to buy handguns, just Americans who live in New Jersey. I'd expect it to be overturned by the Supremes, if it actually goes that far. Many people just decide against going to court once they find out the costs and headaches involved.

10-31-2009, 11:45 PM	#5
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 6,917	Glockmeister, as the professional gun writers keep saying, DC vs. Heller does confirm our inalienable, absolute right to keep and bear arms - on Federal lands and enclaves. The decision does not extend to state and municipalities. Perhaps Justice Scalia felt that because of the incorporation aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment he did not need to explicitly state, "This right applies everywhere in the United States of America, including all fifty states, all counties and all cities and smaller municipalities." But for whatever reason, he did not spell out our right to keep and bear arms in words so plain his intentions are unmistakable and unassailable. That's why McDonald vs. Chicago is to be argued early next year. Building on the principles Scalia outlined in Heller, the NRA and a citizen of the City of Chicago are suing the city over its gun ban laws. If we the honest gun owners of America win McDonald, while we won't have put a stake through the heart of the anti-gun movement in America we'll at least have hosed it down with holy water, jammed it into its coffin filled with socialist graveyard dirt and nailed the lid down. Personally, even with the unwise Latina woman on the Court I don't see how we can lose this case, with the precedent of Heller on the books. If the decision, which won't be announced until summer 2010, does go our way the fight won't be over. The anti-gunners will try to make it look like the municipalities are complying while using the "reasonable restrictions" exclusion Scalia wrote about to maintain the status quo of de facto civil disarmament. That in turn might be stamped out by Heller versus DC, in which Richard Heller is suing the District of Columbia again over their refusal in fact to comply with Heller's requirements as laid down by Justice Scalia. Heller II if decided our way might well define what are the restrictions considered "reasonable," and what form cities' compliance must take. We are going to have to practice constant vigilance. Unless we can get a ruling from the Supreme Court that explicitly says what our gun rights are, and that they are to be left alone by both the Congress and lower governments (fat chance!), the anti-gunners will never give up. Short of a revolution and a new Constitution that specifically says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute and individual; and shall not be infringed by any Federal, state, county or municipal law, regulation, order, ordinance or decree," we the honest shooters of America are not going to see this issue settled in our favor in our lifetimes.