Did anyone challenge NJ Guilty-Until-Proven-Otherwise Firearm Laws ?

[jackandjill 683]

I am relatively new to NJ Firearm laws. But, as stated by many, it appears that almost all issues with NJ Firearm laws are rooted in the concept of Guilty Until Proven Otherwise.

 

Take Concealed Carry for example:

 

1. Firearms are illegal by default

2. You request *exception* via FID process to purchase a long gun

3. You request *exception* via PP process to purchase a pistol

4. You request *exception* via FID / Travel modes / Home / Business etc to possess firearms

4. You request *exception* via Carry Permit Process to conceal carry

 

Because these are *exceptions* to an otherwise illegal activity, due process must be afforded. NJ played very well and made Judges part of the process  but set the guidelines, process such a way to result in denial anyways.  So, technically no one can claim that denial was unilateral by any specific branch of government.

 

But premise for all of this is the assertion that ALL Firearms and their possession is illegal.  Had it not for that assertion, we wouldnt need these permits, exceptions, due process. Isnt it ?  Had it not for that assertion, we wouldnt need the fake due process.

 

If that one assertion is removed, all these things will turn on their heads and the burden of *proof* of illegal activity falls on the accuser (NJ).

 

How can someone declare COMPLETE 2A as illegal activity and then have people *request exception* ?  Are there any other areas of law / life where Govt made such a wide declaration and then demanded that citizens *ask* for exceptions ?

 

We may fight each exception separately such as concealed carry. But were there any attempts to address the root cause ? Or is it just not possible ?

 

<sorry, end of rant>

[Silence Dogood 468]

Technically, firearms are illegal without a permit to carry, which almost no one can obtain due to the 'justifiable need' provision.

[Vlad G 345]

And that is the biggest challenge that no one made to NJ gun laws post Heller.

[ryan_j 0]

 

 

How can someone declare COMPLETE 2A as illegal activity and then have people *request exception* ?  Are there any other areas of law / life where Govt made such a wide declaration and then demanded that citizens *ask* for exceptions ?

 

We may fight each exception separately such as concealed carry. But were there any attempts to address the root cause ? Or is it just not possible ?

 

<sorry, end of rant>

 

This was Nappen's brief in the Pantano case.

 

Unfortunately as soon as Christie reappointed Stu Rabner, one of his first acts was to DIG the case. 

 

http://www.evannappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/webpostbrief.pdf

[Mr.Stu 1,939]

This was Nappen's brief in the Pantano case.

 

Unfortunately as soon as Christie reappointed Stu Rabner, one of his first acts was to DIG the case.

 

http://www.evannappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/webpostbrief.pdf

What does DIG mean?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[springfieldxds 0]

What does DIG mean?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

he said the NJ supreme Court made a mistake in accepting to hear the case and because of that they will no longer hear the case

[HBecwithFn7 296]

What does DIG mean?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

I suspect [D]ismissed as mproperly [G}ranted....   DIG

[ryan_j 0]

What does DIG mean?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

Dismissed as Improvidently Granted

[Midwest 28]

I am relatively new to NJ Firearm laws. But, as stated by many, it appears that almost all issues with NJ Firearm laws are rooted in the concept of Guilty Until Proven Otherwise.

 

Take Concealed Carry for example:

 

1. Firearms are illegal by default

2. You request *exception* via FID process to purchase a long gun

3. You request *exception* via PP process to purchase a pistol

4. You request *exception* via FID / Travel modes / Home / Business etc to possess firearms

4. You request *exception* via Carry Permit Process to conceal carry

 

Because these are *exceptions* to an otherwise illegal activity, due process must be afforded. NJ played very well and made Judges part of the process  but set the guidelines, process such a way to result in denial anyways.  So, technically no one can claim that denial was unilateral by any specific branch of government.

 

But premise for all of this is the assertion that ALL Firearms and their possession is illegal.  Had it not for that assertion, we wouldnt need these permits, exceptions, due process. Isnt it ?  Had it not for that assertion, we wouldnt need the fake due process.

 

If that one assertion is removed, all these things will turn on their heads and the burden of *proof* of illegal activity falls on the accuser (NJ).

 

How can someone declare COMPLETE 2A as illegal activity and then have people *request exception* ?  Are there any other areas of law / life where Govt made such a wide declaration and then demanded that citizens *ask* for exceptions ?

 

We may fight each exception separately such as concealed carry. But were there any attempts to address the root cause ? Or is it just not possible ?

 

<sorry, end of rant>

There is conjecture that the reason it is this way is because the Second amendment is not addressed in the New Jersey Constitution. In fact in an 1947 Constitutional Convention, the Second Amendment was left out of it according to this.

 

http://conservativenewjersey.com/handguns-banned-in-new-jersey

 

"I find it embarrassing to explain that, for practical purposes, the Second Amendment does not really apply to New Jersey. Delegates to the 1947 New Jersey Constitutional Convention believed that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was so obvious and universally accepted that they did not include it the wording in our state Constitution - a presumptive error of epic proportions."

 

I don't know if it was ever included in the NJ Constitution and then taken out. Or if it was never put in there in the first place. I don't understand what was the purpose or need that led up to rewriting the NJ Constitution in 1947 in the first place. Furthermore, how many Constitutional Conventions have their been? How many are aware that there was a constitutional convention in 1966? The same year when the FID law took effect.

http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Business-Jersey-Constitutional-Convention/dp/0882851756

 

If you want the history of gun control in New Jersey here you go.

 

Part One

 

http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/14/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun/

 

and part two

 

http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/15/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun-part-deux/

 

I thought I would mention that the Attorney General for NJ at the time, Arthur J Sills was pretty much responsible for pushing the 1966 Firearms ID Card through. Also noteworthy is that Mr. Sills also helped Thomas Dodd (architect of the 1968 Gun Control Act) by giving input in the infamous "Dodd hearings" on gun control in 1965. (I'll bet some of you didn't know that).

 

Here is more on Sills

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_J._Sills

 

"He was nonetheless criticized by civil rights groups for defending a warrantless search for stolen guns by 300 heavily armed New Jersey State Police and National Guardsmen during the 1967 Plainfield riots. He also came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union for writing a memorandum in the wake of the 1967 Newark riots encouraging state police to compile detailed dossiers on people taking part in demonstrations.[3][4]

 

After leaving office, Sills founded his own firm based in Newark, New Jersey, Sills, Beck, Cummis, Radin, Tischman & Zuckerman (now known as Sills Cummis & Gross). He represented James Florio during the recount for the 1981 gubernatorial election.[2] In 1982 he died of a stroke at the age of 65.[3]"

 

If you want to research Arthur J Sills statements at the 1965 Dodd hearings. Supposedly this section 394-407 is where he gives his input. And you may download the entire Hearings on the federal Firearms Act PL 90-618  at https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/90-618/0000573D.pdf

 

In fact all 867 pages of it, make for an interesting historical record of the political climate at the time. During this period, there was talk about national gun registration and licensing of gun owners. I believe President Johnson was in favor of banning the ownership of firearms by civilians.

[PeteF 1,044]

...

Not disagreeing with anything you wrote. And up until 2010, that was a major problem

But does any of that matter now that the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment has been incorporated?

Since It has been acknowledged as a personal right (to at least own a firearm wont get to the carry part), how can NJ's law stand?

[Midwest 28]

Not disagreeing with anything you wrote. And up until 2010, that was a major problem

But does any of that matter now that the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment has been incorporated?

Since It has been acknowledged as a personal right (to at least own a firearm wont get to the carry part), how can NJ's law stand?

Here are the court determinations to three challenges to the 1966 FID law in Burton Vs Sills.  And this doesn't even challenge New Jersey's process for purchasing or carrying pistols which were already in effect well  before 1966. This is just for the 1966 Firearms ID card law.

 

How the affirmation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in 2010 would affect the determination of the NJ Supreme Court from 1967-1968?  I think a constitutional lawyer might be able to put it into perspective. If anyone wishes to research this and other court decisions further. Please check the links provided below, as well as this site  https://www.courtlistener.com/

 

Note: The following excerpts are public legal record in the public domain

 

 Burton Vs. Sills  1967, 1968 and another 1968 decision where challenges to the 1966 FID Law

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbve/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbA1/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/nj/8BEM/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

Read what the court determined in 1967

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbve/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

"Plaintiffs also contend that the statute provides that an applicant for a firearms purchaser identification card must be fingerprinted and investigated, and give detailed intimate information about himself to the chief police official or superintendent as hereinabove recited, all in derogation of his rights and privacy. It is within the police power of the Legislature to authorize the Superintendent of State Police or a local chief of police to inquire into the background of those seeking to carry, transport or traffic in guns. Public health and safety are dependent upon who carries, purchases, and traffics in guns. As to fingerprints, it has been held in this State that the taking of fingerprints is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment. See State v. King, 44 N.J. 346 (1965) "

 

 

"N.J.S. 2A:151-34, even before it was amended, restricted the sales of pistols and revolvers, just as it does today. The only difference in the new law is that the section was supplemented to provide for a firearms purchaser identification card for the purchase of rifles and shotguns. The court fails to see any constitutional distinction between this restriction and the restrictions on the sale of rifles and shotguns. The court can conceive of no matter more concerned with public safety, health and welfare of the State of New Jersey than that the indiscriminate purchase and *527 use of firearms, and the regulation thereof should be subject to the police power of the State."

 

 

"It is clear from all the foregoing authorities that the Second Amendment merely protects against unwarranted extensions of federal power and does not bar a state government from enacting regulations concerning the use and possession of arms."

 

 

 

 

 

Read what the court determined in 1968 

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbA1/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

 

"The present appeal by sportsmen, gun dealers and a non-profit sportmen's organization represents a broader attack upon the constitutionality of the law. Plaintiffs contend that the act fails in its alleged public purpose and "thus must fall under the weight of the private rights it infringes upon." They further maintain that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the rights of citizens of New Jersey provided for in Amendments I, IV, V, IX and XIV and Article I, Secs. 8 and 10 of the United States Constitution. They claim that the law's restraints and *461 restrictions exceed the State's regulatory powers and constitute "a partial abolition of a basic right."

 

 

"We are satisfied that this gun control law is a proper and reasonable exercise of the State's police powers. It was adopted for legitimate ends. Its wisdom and enforcement are matters within the domain of the Legislature and those charged with its administration. It is too early to stamp it as a failure. Its efficacy must await the test of time. Already more than 50,000 persons have been issued the necessary identification cards permitting them to purchase guns in New Jersey. Approximately 1,000 applications have been rejected. The propriety of these rejections has not been challenged on this appeal. Some 5,000 applications were pending at the time of oral argument. Thus, no law-abiding citizen, free from the statute's disqualifications, has been or will be precluded from purchasing, keeping or bearing arms."

 

 

"Not even plaintiff gun enthusiasts plead for the unregulated right of habitual drunkards, narcotics addicts, criminals, mental cases, or proponents of force and violence who approve and advocate such means to overthrow the government or deny the enjoyment by others of their constitutional rights, to purchase firearms. Rather, they complain of the inconvenience and delay which some hunters and sportsmen have experienced in obtaining their identification cards. Experience in administering this new law will minimize such inconveniences and delays. Some find the fingerprinting requirement personally objectionable. But fingerprinting no longer bears the odium of bygone days when generally only persons charged with crime were fingerprinted. Nowadays, many people in all walks of life freely submit to this beneficent identification process. Inconvenience, delay and sensitive feelings are not adequate grounds for striking down this legislation and frustrating its good purposes."

 

 

 

"We find no substantial merit in the claim that this law wrongfully infringes upon the individual's constitutional rights under any of the provisions specified. Under the State's police powers, the common good takes precedence over private *462 rights. One's home may be destroyed to prevent a conflagration. One's freedom of locomotion may be impeded to prevent the spread of a contagious disease. Our basic freedoms may be curtailed if sufficient reason exists therefor. Only in a very limited sense is a person free to do as he pleases in our modern American society. Regulation by the government is the price we pay for living in an organized community. From the day we are born, when a birth certificate must be filed, until the day we die, when official certification thereof must be recorded, we spend the intervening years obtaining licenses to marry, to drive a motor vehicle, to sell alcoholic beverages, to operate a barbershop, to practice the learned professions and to do countless other things, including the obtaining of a license to hunt and fish. These burdens we assume for the good that flows therefrom. We find no basic difference in a requirement to obtain a gun purchaser's identification card."

 

 

The last decision in 1968

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/nj/8BEM/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

"All in all, the plaintiffs' presentation, while indicating some inconvenience and intrusion into the total privacy they seek to retain, has not established any constitutional infirmity or the deprivation of any basic right. Reasonable gun control legislation is clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him. On balance, the interests of the State are manifestly paramount, and while New Jersey's comprehensive efforts may not prove to be wholly successful until suitably joined by other jurisdictions, they will undoubtedly have advanced the public welfare by having led the way. See 99 N.J. Super., at 462; Administrative Code of City of New York §§ 436-6.0 to 436-6.16 (Grimm v. City of New York, supra, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358); cf. Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, 90th Cong., H.R. 17735 (October 1968), amending 18 U.S.C. c. 44 and 26 U.S.C. c. 53. We agree with the holding of constitutionality below and, accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division is:

Affirmed.

For affirmance Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN 7.

For reversal None."