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

« 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

Posted by David Hardy · 19 May 2014 03:30 PM

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

JimSmith | May 19, 2014 3:57 PM | Reply

I read the complaint.

What standing do they have?

Dennis | May 19, 2014 7:13 PM | Reply

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.

denton | May 19, 2014 9:27 PM | Reply

How is this law not banning firearms in common use for lawful purposes?

SAS 2008 replied to comment from Dennis | May 19, 2014 10:04 PM | Reply

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.

SAS 2008 replied to comment from Dennis | May 19, 2014 10:12 PM | Reply

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.

Joel Stoner | May 20, 2014 12:12 AM | Reply

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.

Joel Stoner | May 20, 2014 12:18 AM | Reply

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.

Anonymous | May 20, 2014 6:42 AM | Reply

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.

fwb | May 20, 2014 11:20 AM | Reply

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.

Rich | May 20, 2014 2:29 PM | Reply

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...

fwb | May 20, 2014 8:12 PM | Reply

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.

Don Gwinn | May 22, 2014 1:48 PM | Reply

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?

Leave a comment