Jump to content
SJG

Does a Homeless Man have a Second Amendment Right to Carry

Recommended Posts

John Parker is a homeless man, who legally acquired a handgun as a result of an inheritance. He lives in a public park. Does he have a Second Amendment Right to Carry the handgun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question.

 

Does one need an address to own a firearm.  These are the questions

 

How would the state issue him a State ID if he lives in a park or would they deny him an ID?

If they would issue him an ID then how can they deny him a firearms card or right to own it?

 

Living in a park. does that count as carry or home?

 

I would think since the person has no permanent address OR his ID's do not match his address it would be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The park does not have an ordinance on the subject

Parker says that the Second Amendment is the law of the land, and applies in every State

 

Then Parker is going to prison, just like if you or I got caught carrying ( in NJ )  , regardless of location. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is is that since he is poor and he most likely is most in "need" of owning a firearm, he will not be allowed to carry or own it.  He will be forced to sell it or turn it over to the state for safe keeping.  If this is a real court case, I don't think he has a snowball's chance of winning.  It will be considered by the press to be a nuisance case and he'll be persecuted by the media and demonized by the public. 

 

C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He says he is allowed to own it because he legally inherited it and there is a record of that when his father's will was admitted to probate

He says the State does not accept guns for "safekeeping" and that if he tries that, he will forfeit the gun

He can't give the gun to a private person to hold, that would be an illegal transfer, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge let a homeless man in Morristown use a park bench as his address to register to vote about 15 or 20 years ago. It was a rather significant case that the ACLU got involved in. He also won a sizable judgement after suing the Morristown public library because they enacted a dress code (or used some other similar manner)  to keep him out after library users complained that he smelled and would stare at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge let a homeless man in Morristown use a park bench as his address to register to vote about 15 or 20 years ago. It was a rather significant case that the ACLU got involved in. He also won a sizable judgement after suing the Morristown public library because they enacted a dress code (or used some other similar manner)  to keep him out after library users complained that he smelled and would stare at them.

Exactly how would the park bench be addressed? And of course, could that be used for an FID/P2P?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he need a P2P he is not purchasing a gun?

Why does he need a FID? he legally inherited the gun?

There is nothing that says that you have to have an address or own a home to legally inherit a gun, right?

If he lives in the park, and he is allowed to vote, isn't the park his home and isn't it legal to carry a gun in your home, without a carry permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he need a P2P he is not purchasing a gun?

Why does he need a FID? he legally inherited the gun?

There is nothing that says that you have to have an address or own a home to legally inherit a gun, right?

If he lives in the park, and he is allowed to vote, isn't the park his home and isn't it legal to carry a gun in your home, without a carry permit?

Fair enough. He doesn't need either, per se. But would he be able to get one, in order to further fulfill his second amendment rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge let a homeless man in Morristown use a park bench as his address to register to vote about 15 or 20 years ago. It was a rather significant case that the ACLU got involved in. He also won a sizable judgement after suing the Morristown public library because they enacted a dress code (or used some other similar manner) to keep him out after library users complained that he smelled and would stare at them.

Friggin Kreimer. :facepalm: The kicker is I've head his family has money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MidwestPX, on 31 Oct 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Yes, he has the right to exercise the Second Amendment.  Whether or not the government will allow him to exercise it is another matter altogether.

sadly in NJ...there is NO second amendment right except by exception....which means there is no "right" only permission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer to the question , at least here in NJ as the laws would suggest is...nope. he has no place to appropriately secure the firearm...no verifiable address and as a result no right to have it.

 

This is the answer imo....

 

They do not need to "deny his right to have one" he still has the right to have one.... He just has to follow the rules about ownership... And he can not technically do that without a home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I read the 2A it said something like "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Prohibiting John Parker from ownership of a firearm is obvious infringement and denial of a right.

As cool of an answer as that is go to your local ffl and ask them to transfer a full auto Mac variant.... Or maybe even just some 30 round mags... Obviously the answer is only practical burried on an Internet forum...

 

Being homeless does not negate nj gun law.... The law applies equally... So if he wants to keep the gun he has to have a residence to keep it at since he can not legally carry a handgun in NJ without a nj carry permit....

 

His home status is moot.... The bottom line is he can not carry the gun just by being homeless..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per this ruling, a Park Bench can be used as an address.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html

Different state.... Different situation.....

 

Obviously leaving a handgun on a park bench in a shoebox is impractical....

Even hypothetically if that is his "address" he can not carry the gun beyond the bench....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As cool of an answer as that is go to your local ffl and ask them to transfer a full auto Mac variant.... Or maybe even just some 30 round mags... Obviously the answer is only practical burried on an Internet forum...

 

Being homeless does not negate nj gun law.... The law applies equally... So if he wants to keep the gun he has to have a residence to keep it at since he can not legally carry a handgun in NJ without a nj carry permit....

 

His home status is moot.... The bottom line is he can not carry the gun just by being homeless..

Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different state.... Different situation.....

 

Obviously leaving a handgun on a park bench in a shoebox is impractical....

Even hypothetically if that is his "address" he can not carry the gun beyond the bench....

Federal judge.  I remember this has come up several times and each time ti was held that one could use a public space as an address.

 

Hypothetically, this should extend to gun ownership as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By Ramup422
      ANNOUNCEMENT: The Party of 6 would like to announce our first Tavern Meeting which will take place on June 25th, 2016 at 130pm. This would not be occurring without the direct support of RTSP, the premier indoor shooting range, store, and training facility. As the leader in the state of New Jersey for all things concerning firearms, the owners/operators of RTSP are patriots! RTSP and their magnificent facility are leading the way in direct support of the Party of Six. On June 25th, the Party of Six will host a meet and greet with the following: Mr. Albert Almeida, Mr. Michael Tumminelli, Mr. Mark Cheeseman and Mr. Stephen Stamboulieh (Lead Attorney for Almeida/Tumminelli). This is our opportunity to say thank and to answer all the questions that we possibly can. It will also give those who have yet to visit RTSP, a chance to see what they have to offer in way of sales, ranges and personnel. Additional guests will include but not limited to: Mr. Scott Kesterson of Kilroy Rising, a group who is in direct support of 2A causes at the national level as well as critical issues concerning our great country. Please mark your calendar and join us in the fight!
       
      LOCATION:
      961 Route 10 East, Randolph, NJ 07869
      P: (973) 434 7600 / F: (973) 252 1048 [email protected]
    • By Ramup422
      Daniel Spafford is a Rutgers law school 3L and is slated to become a lawyer in the Spring of 2015. You can read his article in its entirety at www.justifiableneed.com under the "opinions" tab.
       
      It talks about the Shaneen Allen case, the Brian Aitken case and the fight of Albert Almeida that is fighting for carry rights of all in NJ.
       
       
    • By SJG
      DES MOINES, Iowa -- Here's some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads:
      Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.
      No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.
      The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.
      On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities
      On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn't issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.
      Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.
      "It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads we can't deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing," said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County Sheriff's Department, referring to a visual disability.
      Polk County officials say they've issued weapons permits to at least three people who can't legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.
      And sheriffs in three other counties — Jasper, Kossuth and Delaware — say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have severe visual impairments.
      "I'm not an expert in vision," Delaware County Sheriff John LeClere said. "At what point do vision problems have a detrimental effect to fire a firearm? If you see nothing but a blurry mass in front of you, then I would say you probably shouldn't be shooting something."
      Training the visually impaired
      In one Iowa county, blind residents who want weapons would likely receive special training.
      Wethington, the Cedar County sheriff, has a legally blind daughter who plans to obtain a permit to carry when she turns 21 in about two years. He demonstrated for the Register how he would train blind people who want to carry a gun.
      "If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals' hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive," Wethington said as he and his daughter took turns practice shooting with a semi-automatic handgun on private property in rural Cedar County.
      The number of visually impaired or blind Iowans who can legally carry weapons in public is unknown because that information is not collected by the state or county sheriffs who issue the permits.
      Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, said the range of sight among people who are classified as legally blind varies greatly. He believes there are situations where such applicants can safely handle a gun.
      Quentin DeVore, a legally blind Army veteran from Newton, Iowa photographed in March 2013, is a gun enthusiast and collector. Despite his vision impairment, DeVore holds a permit to carry a firearm, and says he is well within his legal rights to do so.(Photo: Bryon Houlgrave, The Des Moines Register)
      However, he also expressed concerns.
      "Although people who are blind can participate fully in nearly all life's experiences, there are some things like the operation of a weapon that may very well be an exception," Clancy said.
      The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit blind people from owning guns. But unlike Iowa, some states have laws that spell out whether visually impaired people can obtain weapon permits.
      Vision requirements are either directly or indirectly part of the weapon permit criteria in some surrounding states.
      In Nebraska, for example, applicants for a permit to carry a concealed handgun must provide "proof of vision" by either presenting a valid state driver's license or a statement by an eye doctor that the person meets vision requirements set for a typical vehicle operator's license.
      Other states have indirect requirements that could — but don't automatically — disqualify people who are blind. That includes Missouri and Minnesota, where applicants must complete a live fire test, which means they have to shoot and hit a target.
      A 50-state database of gun permit requirements published by USACarry.com also shows that South Carolina has a law that requires proof of vision before a person is approved for a weapons permit.
      Wisconsin, like Iowa, has no visual restrictions on gun permit applicants. Illinois lawmakers enacted a concealed weapons law in July but permits have not yet been issued. Illinois' qualifications don't specifically require a visual test, but applicants must complete firearms training that includes range instruction.
      The National Federation of the Blind does not track states that require vision tests as part of weapon permit processes and has not taken an official stand on the issue. But its members are generally opposed to such laws, said Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the group.
      "There's no reason solely on the (basis) of blindness that a blind person shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon," Danielsen said. "Presumably they're going to have enough sense not to use a weapon in a situation where they would endanger other people, just like we would expect other people to have that common sense."
      Iowa requires training for anyone who is issued a permit to carry a weapon in public, but that requirement can be satisfied through an online course that does not include any hands-on instruction or a shooting test.
      A provision in Iowa's law allows sheriffs to deny a permit if probable cause exists to believe that the person is likely to use the weapon in such a way that it would endanger themselves or others. Many sheriffs noted, however, that the provision relates to specific documented actions, and applicants who appealed their cases would likely win.
      Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, believes changing the state law to deny blind people or others with physical disabilities the right to carry arms would violate federal disabilities law.
      Part of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a public entity to conduct an individualized analysis to make a reasonable judgment before denying a service. Hudson believes someone could successfully challenge Nebraska's proof of vision requirement as illegal.
      "The fact that you can't drive a car doesn't mean you can't go to a shooting range and see a target," Hudson said.
      My comment: it is amazing to me that a blind person might be in a better position, than a sighted one, as they can argue they have a right to a carry permit under the ADA and the Second Amendment
    • By MadeInAmerica
      I ain't planning nuthin, I'm just askin. Since to bring a case before SCOTUS, one has to have suffered harm or loss due to a law, what about carrying w/o a permit? One would get arrested... What would the sacrificial lamb have to go through on his way to a hearing before SCOTUS? Like I said before, I'm just askin.
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...