« That's got to hurt... | Main | Detroit Chief of Police says he supports the 2nd Amendment »
Brady sues to force "smart gun" requirements in NJ
Here's the complaint. Essentially, the NJ legislature passed a law in 2002, which required the attorney general to report whenever "smart gun" technology went on sale in the US. Three years after he so reports, the only handguns that can be sold in NJ will be ones so equipped. The complaint alleges that the technology is now on sale, and seeks an order that the AG file the report. Nevermind that there are major concerns about reliability and safety. If people don't want to rely on such guns, Brady figures, we'll just have to force them to do so.
Ah, "reasonable gun control"! Brady apparently thinks that even New Jersey is "unreasonably mild" on the subject.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
I hope the Brady Bunch wins. Mew Jersey deserves it for voting those politicians in. Of course then the SCOTUS will have to step in and that could be interesting.
How is this law not banning firearms in common use for lawful purposes?
They make a big deal about 7 chapters of million mom march being in New Jersey and the Mercer chapter is just one. I would guess that is why they think they have standing.
So there is one 22 lr model from one manufacturer that was made for sale in Maryland and California and now (in three years actually) that is the only model of handgun that can be sold? That seems to put a damper on the core lawful purpose of self-defense of the 2nd amendment.
Has one of these actually been sold? Last i'd heard the only FFL willing to sell them in CA, decided against it, and the one in NJ, hasn't even ordered them yet.
I agree with Jim Smith, i do not see anything that supports legal standing for either plaintiff. Without damages to a plaintiff, i see no legal standing. However this is New Jersey we're talking about.
Fearless prediction: The New Jersey AG will spend about as much effort defending the suit as certain Democratic AGs in a variety of states, notably California, have spent defending state bans on gay marriage.
The 2nd amendment has none of the allowances that the judicial branch has pulled out of the dark recesses beneath their robes. There is no "compelling government interest" exception in the Constitution. Barron v Baltimore was decided incorrectly for many reasons but the primary reason falls under the supremacy clause. The states were controlled and are controlled by the 2nd and the God given Rights enshrined in the 2nd are fundamental and inalienable. The government has no authority to place any restrictions on Arms, only on the improper use of those Arms to harm others.
The supreme court has made a mockery of the 2nd and all the Bill of Rights by believing themselves to have some say in what these clauses mean. However, the Constitution is the creator of the court and as such is the court's superior. The subordinate, ie the Court, holds no authority to define the superior, ie the Constitution.
FWB: NJ has made a mockery of it's own state constitution in addition to the US one. We used to be able to point to Louisiana as the most corrupt state not any more...
From my experience, every state has rampant corruption and those in power will do anything to maintain their control. Most folks either don't know the limitations our constitutions place on them or they just don't care because they are wont to relinquish any power taken.
I see this suit as likely to succeed, where "succeed" means "touch off a massive fight to repeal the NJ smart-gun mandate with a 3-year deadline."
Am I missing anything?
I read the complaint.
What standing do they have?