[Janq]

I saw _zero_ news toward this yesterday, none, nada, nothing at all (!)

NEW JERSEY COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT AND HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW

Belvidere, N.J, March 19, 2007—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 attorney Evan F. Nappen, whose law firm (including Richard V. Gilbert, Esq. and Louis P. Nappen, Esq.) represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. “In this 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.) Click here for full text.

The Warren County Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal in the case.

Source - http://www.evannappen.com/lawupdate1gunbook/

- Janq

 

[jamz]

What the hell? This is the first I'd heard of it too. A win for NJ! They've been long enough without one.

 

[MrMcCrackin]

interesting - who next NYC?

 

[techwrtr2]

Hmmmm.... I think that law firm is one I could like.

NRAnda Warnings



You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Anything irresponsible you do can be used against you in a Court of Law.

You have the right to have a firearm present now and during any future activity.

If you cannot afford a firearm, save up and buy one!

 

[Petrus]

Sounds like a fine precedent for future cases... now we just have to start up some more fun in the rest of the US of A.

Petrus

 

[Janq]

Agreed Petrus, very much so.

Folks on the gun boards have been singing songs of lets take it to the Supreme Court (!) as based on the DC appelate court decision.
IMHO that would be a huge unthinking mistake. The risk with them is far too great and irreversably permanent, if they decide to decide against the lower courts finding which is not unpossible or a first.

We 2A/RKBA types across the country, and especially those in anti 2A/RKBA states including zones like IL/Chicago, need to take these recent DC and NJ decisions and run with them at a grassroots level within our own state and appleate courts. These decisions are as you said; "Prcedent", and future decisons elsewhere off of these two will themselves provide additional precedents toward more.

It can be done and has been in the past as related to 2A/RKBA, and can be done again without interdiction by SCoTUS, which if they decided against the recent rulings would have far reaching, permanent, and irreversible consequences for us all and our children to come into perpetuity. The risk there is far too great considering the current status of the court and it's general leanings.

Lets hope and pray the pro-2A/RKBA legal beagles are preparing state and district based filings as we speak...

- Janq

 

[Petrus]

Agreed Janq, but don't you think that with the current trends that even with precedents taken into consideration that it gets more and more risky for us on the SCOTUS level? I feel that the more time goes by the less likely it will be for us to have a decent progun ratio on the SCOTUS.

Petrus

 

[Janq]

Petrus,

Frankly I don't think we ever will have a pro-gun SCoTUS.
Have there ever been such a collection of justices?

I can't say I 100% or even 75% know for sure they would go against it.
But, I can say I'm not willing to bet the farm that they will and thats just what would happen with a SCoTUS run, it would be all in winner take all...forever with no appeal.

- Janq is a calculated risk taker but not a gambler