I figure there will probably be some dopey gun control folks that will credit one-gun-a-month for Newark’s drop in crime, but this article from NJ.com suggests it was improved police methods that are responsible. Imagine that.
Category: New Jersey
ANRPC Looking for Gun Permit Rationing
It’s a little known provision of New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law that it doesn’t apparently allow the police to ration purchase permits; according to New Jersey law, you can still apply for as many purchase permits as you want, you just may not use them to buy more than one gun in a month time period. This was a key element of ANJRPC’s lawsuit. Nonetheless, there are reports that police departments are rationing permits anyway, and now ANJRPC is looking for some help:
We are looking for anyone who has applied for more than one permit to purchase a handgun and has been told by their police department that they may only apply for one permit per month.
Please contact us immediately to let us know. Email to defendfreedom at earthlink dot net
So if you know someone, or are someone over in Jersey, who this applies to, be sure to contact ANJRPC. I suspect they are looking for some cases to bolster their lawsuit.
1,000 Words
More on the New Jersey Lawsuit
I’m finally having some time to go over ANJRPC‘s Federal Complaint in detail. The important thing is that this was filed in Federal Court. New Jersey’s court system is notoriously stacked against gun owners. The courts in the Garden State are highly political, sometimes corrupt, and will often ignore plain law. It is fair to say the independence of New Jersey’s courts leaves much to be desired. The Federal Courts are a much better venue to raise questions like this than in New Jersey courts.
We get into federal court through what’s called Federal-question jurisdiction, namely the claim that federal law preempts states for prohibiting the sale of air guns, and that New Jersey is violating said federal law with their rationing scheme. That is the real meat of the case. But because we are raising claims under a federal question, we can also raise claims under Supplemental Jurisdiction, and this lawsuit does that as well. The first concurrent claim related to the original count is raised under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming (legal format altered for space and readability):
Members of Plaintiff Association wish to qualify for one or more of the Exemptions. On or about January 13, 2010, Plaintiff Bach applied for three Handgun Purchase Permits. Plaintiff Bach wishes to apply for the Collector Exemption so he can purchase more than one handgun within a 30 day period, which purchase would satisfy the statutory criteria for the Collector Exemption.
On or about January 14, 2010, Plaintiff Bach inquired of the State Police as to what procedure is available to apply for the Exemptions. The State Police told him that there was none at this time. Upon information and belief, at this time there is no procedure in place by which an applicant can apply for and the Superintendent can grant any of the Exemptions.
Accordingly, certain Plaintiffs and/or Members of Plaintiffs who would qualify for one or more Exemptions, and who would therefore be entitled by law to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period are being unlawfully constrained by the One Gun Law, are unable to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period, and are unlawfully subject to prosecution if they do so.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are being deprived of their liberty and/or property without due process of law in violation of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, relief enjoining the enforcement of the One Gun Law.
So the law provides for an exception, and the State Police claim to have no procedure for dealing with the new law. This is typical of how New Jersey operates, and New Jersey gun owners should be greatly pleased, for once, they will have to answer for it in court. The next claim is similar, also under the 14th Amendment:
N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.4(h) provides as follows:
Applicants for a permit to purchase a handgun may apply for more than one permit per application. The number of permits requested, and each permit number shall be entered in the spaces provided on the application.
On or about January 7, 2010, Plaintiff Johnson applied for two Handgun Purchase Permits at the Washington Township (Morris County) Police Department. Notwithstanding the One Gun Law, Plaintiff Johnson can save time, effort, and expense by applying for multiple Handgun Purchase Permits simultaneously and lawfully using only one Handgun Purchase Permit with any given 30 day period. On or about January 8, 2010, the Chief of Police of Washington Township notified Plaintiff Johnson by letter that as of January 1, 2010 the New Jersey State Police are only permitting one application for a Handgun Purchase Permit per month and returned the fee for his second Handgun Purchase Permit. By denying Plaintiff Johnson’s right to apply for two Handgun Purchase Permits simultaneously, Defendant Washington violated N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.4(h), which explicitly authorizes such application.
The law actually allows individuals to still apply for more than one permit to purchase at a time. The claim is that police departments are violating the law by refusing to accept applications at a rate of more than one per month. Presumably then it would be up to the purchaser and dealer to ration the gun purchases, however this complaint asks for injunctive relief against the entire law, the two concurrent claims just help make the case stronger, and will possibly put police departments under court order not to enforce any aspects of the one gun a month law.
Police departments in New Jersey having to follow the law when it comes to gun permits? What a novel concept! This suit does not raise any Second Amendment claims, which is prudent given that we do not yet have a ruling in McDonald as of yet as to how the Fourteenth Amendment applies Second Amendment rights to the states.
New Jersey Lawsuit Hitting the Media
Looks like the first of the New Jersey gun rationing lawsuit is hitting the main stream media:
New Jersey gun owners took a parting shot at the waning administration of Gov. Jon Corzine today, filing a federal lawsuit challenging his one-handgun-a-month law, claiming it is unconstitutional and that some towns already make it impossible to obtain one pistol in six months.
The article has it kind of right, though it really glosses over the fundamental issues, which I will cover later. Either way, it has Bryan Miller’s panties in a bunch:
“Typical gun-extremist nonsense,†said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control organization. “This is typical of the gun lobby — never satisfied, always seeking to have everybody armed. … I think the court will probably throw this frivolous suit out.â€
Pretty clearly Bryan didn’t read the Complaint, unless he wants to explain why this lawsuit is “frivolous.” But hey, getting Bryan upset makes this all worth it to me. I will say, it’s nice scooping the MSM on a story.
ANJRPC Challenges NJ Gun Rationing in Federal Court
I have to admit, I give the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Scott Bach, and Evan Nappen, a lot of credit for thinking this one up. Their Counsel, Daniel Schmutter, deserves credit as well for putting together such a solid case. It’s a novel legal argument, based on an obscure aspect of federal law, and it’s so deliciously clever it’s hard to believe it will work, but I think it has a good chance. This challenge to the one-gun-a-month law hinges on the definition of “firearm” in New Jersey Law. You can see the ANJRPC press release here on their web site:
The lawsuit is based on a federal statute that pre-empts state and local laws regulating the sale of certain firearms. The new law runs directly afoul of that statute because of the way New Jersey’s ultra-strict laws sweepingly define firearms. The suit also asserts claims based on the failure of the State Police to implement procedures under the new law, as well as the unlawful rationing of handgun permits by individual municipalities.
They also have a link to the Federal Complaint which you can find here. The legal basis for this federal complaint is 15 U.S.C. §5001(g)(ii), which provides for federal preemption of laws regulating air guns, if you can believe that. Quoting:
(g) Preemption of State or local laws or ordinances; exceptions
The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of State or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section provided that no State shall– . . .
(ii) prohibit the sale (other than prohibition the sale to minors) of traditional B-B, paint ball, or pellet firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.
The reason this matter is because New Jersey’s definition of a firearm includes air guns as well. From N.J.S 2C:39-1 (f), where the term firearm is defined:
It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.
Essentially the argument is, if someone buys an air gun, they are by statute then prohibited from purchasing another during that thirty day period, so it amounts, in practice to a prohibition of the sale of air guns. Now, the important thing here is the lawsuit is over one-gun-a-month. It is not over the definition of firearm under New Jersey law. Therefore we escape the problem of severability, where a judge could rule the air gun language in the definition is superseded by federal law, and thus moot, severing it from the definition, and leaving the rest stand. Because of the subject matter of the lawsuit, the judge may not consider the definition, and will be forced to consider only whether the one-gun-a-month law violates the federal preemption, which is pretty clearly does.
This would mean the legislature would have no choice but to try to pass one-gun-a-month again, though with an exception for air guns this time to get around federal law. Given that Dick Cody is out as President of the Senate, and Stephen Sweeney, who is friendly on the issue, is in, it doesn’t look good for re-passage. Even if it does, Corzine is out, and Chris Christie, who was not supportive of the rationing law, will now occupy the Governor’s mansion. So it doesn’t look good for the other side if this lawsuit prevails.
There are implications for Pennsylvania too, if this case wins, since Pennsylvania is also n the Third Circuit. Philadelphia currently bans sale and possession of air guns in violation of the same federal statute, so getting some favorable precedent in the Third Circuit on this issue will also help air gun shooters in Philadelphia, should anyone subsequently bring suit against the ordinance.
All in all, I think this is a brilliant lawsuit, and ANJRPC, and all those involved with bringing it, deserve a lot of credit for coming up with a novel legal argument against gun rationing that has a serious chance of winning. Ironically, it was New Jersey’s inclusion of air guns in with firearms that may be this law’s undoing. Let’s hope for a favorable outcome in this case.
Corzine Signs Bill Weakening His One-Gun-A-Month Election Scheme
When John Corzine thought that pushing gun control was the key to his re-election bid, there was nothing more important that the legislature could possibly do. Without fanfare, he signed the measure that makes the law slightly less of an abuse on the law abiding gun owners of New Jersey. I guess the theatrics don’t matter to him anymore now that he’s politically irrelevant.
It’s High Time
Since there aren’t too many bloggers that cover New Jersey politics from a Second Amendment angle, I decided it was high time I added a category specifically for New Jersey. Nothing happens in this issue in a vacuum, and we’ve had more than a few examples of New Jersey based activists crossing the river to push for gun control in Pennsylvania. Bitter and I keep a close eye on what happens in New Jersey, and are in regular communication with leaders in the issue over there. I feel confident we can provide good coverage for New Jersey gun owners.
New Jersey Pols in McDonald Case
Cemetery points out some New Jersey pols that have signed up to oppose McDonald, in response to Bitter’s list of Pennsylvania reps who either joined, or who did not take a stand in the case.
Even in New Jersey, they could only get three Congressmen who wanted to go in record in favor of gun bans. I should also note that New Jersey had three Congressmen who joined the Congressional Brief supporting McDonald, and standing up for the Second Amendment, those reps are:
- Representative E. Scott Garrett (NJ-5, R)
- Representative Leonard Lance (NJ-7, R)
- Representative Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-2, R)
If you live in New Jersey, be sure to thank them. Even in the Brady Paradise of New Jersey, the anti-gun forces still couldn’t outnumber pro-Second Amendment forces.