Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« An honest approach | Main | Blogging juror raises a problem »

NJ ruling touching upon right to arms

Posted by David Hardy · 20 March 2007 11:46 AM

Ev Nappan has a posting regarding a NJ Superior Court ruling (I think the Superior Ct. is, in NJ, the appellate court). Gist appears to be that NJ passed a law providing that no one who had had guns seized and not returned, for any reason, loses his firearm purchase permit. The plaintiff had had guns seized and had voluntarily given them up, and was denied a permit. The court holds that plaintiff had a second amenment right, and it could not be unknowingly waived by voluntarily giving up firearms.

[hat tip to a Buckeye Firearms Assn volunteer]

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Tom Gunn | March 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply

Interesting in that legislation enacted bars domestic abusers from obtaining arms even though the aledged abuse happened long before the law went into effect.

Note the horror stories of spouses who for expediencey failed to litigate bogus abuse charges not knowing they might and then did lose their rights to arms at some later date.


Tom Gunn

Bitter | March 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply

Kudos to Evan on that! If you ever have gun trouble in New Jersey, Evan is certainly your guy.

Nomen Nescio | March 21, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply

hmm. isn't this situation fairly closely parallel to the federal Lautenberg amendment?

Kevin Baker | March 21, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply

I did a little research. The New Jersey Superior Courts are the top trial courts in each county. This decision was by a single judge. Then there's an Apellate Court above that, but it's still termed "Superior Court," with a three-judge panel. That's the type of court that decided New Jersey v Pelleteri.

This case has been appealed. I don't expect a good outcome, but I've been surprised before.

Bill | March 22, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply

Omigod I'm gonna faint.

A NEW JERSEY court ruled that the Second Amendment actually applies to individuals? In The People's Republic of NEW JERSEY???

I say this as a NJ-born native who lived there for 35 years before exercising my constitutionally protected right to travel and fleeing to the Free World of the United States (i.e., Virginia).

Leave a comment