Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 10/31/2009 View Fri 10/30/2009 View Thu 10/29/2009 View Wed 10/28/2009 View Tue 10/27/2009 View Mon 10/26/2009 View Sun 10/25/2009
1
2009-10-31 Home Front: Culture Wars
NJ Appeals Court Says Americans Do Not Have A Right To Buy Handguns
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2009-10-31 09:38|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 Looks to me like a logical ruling, and a surprisingly intelligent article on it.
The irony is the decision on the requirement that the applicant be a 'person of good character and repute' is to be decided by government officials of New Jersey, who are not known for being such people themselves.
Posted by Glenmore 2009-10-31 11:04||   2009-10-31 11:04|| Front Page Top

#2 I guess that's OK as long as we have the right to buy long guns and shotguns and take a hacksaw to the stock and barrel.
Posted by SteveS 2009-10-31 12:02||   2009-10-31 12:02|| Front Page Top

#3 No problem here at all: go ahead and invalidate the 2nd amendment. Go ahead. I dare you.

The Tea Party folks need only one more big issue for the coming 2010 election.

Go ahead. See what happens.
Posted by Steve White 2009-10-31 12:07||   2009-10-31 12:07|| Front Page Top

#4 What's so hard about understanding "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

The Militia being defined as every free able-bodied (white originally) male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. Hell, they were required to have weapons.
Posted by ed 2009-10-31 12:14||   2009-10-31 12:14|| Front Page Top

#5 I really think that Judges are jealous of how much congress is hated and reviled and want the same. It's rapidly reaching the point where the common American can see that the judges are stepping away from the constitution and committing treason.
Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick  2009-10-31 12:30||   2009-10-31 12:30|| Front Page Top

#6 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?


The anti-gunners argue that "Militia" equates to military and National Guard. However, the Courts, to my understanding, have decided that the 2nd Admendment is an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Posted by JohnQC 2009-10-31 12:40||   2009-10-31 12:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Wasn't the ruling in the D.C. case 5-4 in favor of individuals' rights? Scary, since we now have Sotamayor weighing in. The Chicago case will be the one to watch and, like Steve White states above, I'm really, really hoping it gets a lot of publicity.
Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-31 12:49||   2009-10-31 12:49|| Front Page Top

#8 I actually live in East Windsor NJ and know the attorney Michael Nieschmidt. EW is actually relatively gun friendly in a NJ sort of way. Sounds like some personal issue between Dubov and the Chief. Nieschmidt is a pretty solid lawyer as far as I know. NJ does not have a right to bear arms in it's constitution. We are desperately waiting for 2nd amendment incorporation.
Posted by Hellfish 2009-10-31 12:53||   2009-10-31 12:53|| Front Page Top

#9 If the courts succeed in gutting the 2nd amendment, I shall suggest that the Tea Parties propose the 28th amendment, to wit:


28th Article of Amendment

Section 1. Neither the Congress nor the legislatures of the several states shall impede, encumber or abridge the right of law-abiding citizens to own, purchase and carry ordinary firearms, or to own and purchase ammunition for such firearms. The Congress and the legislatures of the several states may, at their discretion, require a record of firearms ownership, but no such requirement shall be used to abridge, encumber or limit the rights of citizens in this Section.

Section 2. The Congress and the legislatures of the several states may, at their discretion, limit, encumber or abolish the right of ownership of ordinary firearms for any person convicted of a serious felony or breach of the peace under due process of law.

Section 3. The words of this article shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of its ratification.
Posted by Steve White 2009-10-31 14:49||   2009-10-31 14:49|| Front Page Top

#10 The anti-gunners [want to] argue that "Militia" equates to military and National Guard.

However, that is not true. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution stipulates that Congress regulates the militia which it does already in Title 10 United States Code, Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 -

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In fact, what most people call the 'draft' is actually the selective activation of the unorganized militia. Now what they could put forth is that a 'handgun' is not a proper weapon for the militia outside of officers and members handling crew served weapons, but that in turn would imply that they are entitled to own the standard weapons of the Army and Guard which would be the M16 and its variants. Now in desperation the anti-gun folks could try to repeal subparagraph (2), however then any future 'draft' would run afoul of the 13th Amendment.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-31 15:50||   2009-10-31 15:50|| Front Page Top

#11 But Procop - this Title 10 thing is unconstitutional - it discriminates against women.
Posted by Glenmore 2009-10-31 18:16||   2009-10-31 18:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Except Article I, Section 8 specifically gives Congress that authority to define what it is [not that it has stop the Judiciary from usurping such authority in the past]. It's there because the Founding Fathers were products of hundreds of years of English history which included a little dust up called the English Civil War (1641–1651). A key component of which was 'who', the King or Parliament, got to determine the purse string of the military, who appointed the officers, and who wrote the laws governing the military. The Founding Fathers wrote that in specifically to exclude any question of 'who' was, which was the legislative branch.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-31 18:23||   2009-10-31 18:23|| Front Page Top

22:26 lotp
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:13 Besoeker
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:12 lord garth
22:11 Alaska Paul
22:09 Besoeker
22:06 badanov
22:05 notascrename
22:03 Barbara Skolaut
21:58 notascrename
20:53 Pappy
20:52 Pappy
20:41 Woozle Uneter9007
20:37 Chief
20:17 Gabby
19:56 lotp
19:43 CrazyFool
19:41  Anonymoose
19:41 CrazyFool
19:41 Steve White
19:35  Anonymoose
19:32 rhodesiafever
19:15 European Conservative









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com