Great news from an unlikely source!

[Scrivener]

An intelligent firearms decision from a New Jersey court!

NJ Court Recognizes Second Amendment,
HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW

In a landmark written opinion filed February 27, a New Jersey Superior Court recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen’s Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

“The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long overdue,” said ANJRPC Regional Vice President and attorney Evan F. Nappen, who represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. In the appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.

This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of Columbia case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.

“The legal significance of the Second Amendment is finally being recognized by American courts,” Nappen continued, “and this New Jersey case is part of a growing trend in American jurisprudence.”

In the New Jersey case, the appellant was denied re-issuance of his Firearms Purchaser ID card based on his consent to relinquish firearms seized in a domestic dispute in 2000. In 2004, New Jersey enacted a law barring Firearms Purchaser ID cards to any person whose firearms have been seized and not returned.

The Honorable John H. Pursel, J.S.C. held that the statute did not apply and the Firearms Purchaser ID card should be issued because the appellant did not know that his prior consent to relinquish his firearms would subject him to permanent loss of his Second Amendment rights under the 2004 law.

The ruling states in key part:

“Fundamental fairness is a doctrine to be sparingly applied. It is appropriately applied in those rare cases where not to do so will subject the defendant to oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation.” Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), citing State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679, 712, 563 A.2d 1 (1989) (Garibaldi, J., concurring and dissenting). Egregious deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.

Additionally, it is clear that in consenting to the disposition of the weapons seized as a result of the temporary restraining order, the applicant did not intend to waive his right to bear arms as provided by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He therefore could not have knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waived that right.” (Emphasis added.)

The full text of the opinion is available here: http://www.evannappen.com/lawupdate1gunbook/pdfs/peterson.pdf

The Warren County Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal in the case.

 

[Admin]

 

[dixidawg]

Egregious deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.

Would thid also apply to folks that may have consensually admitted to something in the past that now is preventing them from getting an LTC in Ma.? In other words, what implications are there in Ma as a result of this ruling?


As you may have already guessed, IANAL, so please be gentle

 

[Scrivener]

Courts in one state are under no obligation to note decisions in another state.

It is EXACTLY on point with those barred by pre-'98 convictions by Chapter 180, however.

 

[dreppucci007]

Amazing

 

[Lynne]

And from NJ no less! I'm awfully glad I was sitting down.

 

[C-pher]

So, does this mean that it could be challanged if someone wanted to in MA? Could they use these as cases to go back to?

 

[Thor67]

Some of the principals may apply, like this "fundamental fairness" doctrine.

Remember, courts decide on specific points of the law relevant to the case at hand.

The D.C. case may not help because we in MA are not under a blanket ban against handguns, or the other firearms laws in D.C. which basically prohibit gun ownership this was the argument in the case in D.C.

NJ may help, but it sounds like only if it goes to SCOTUS, and turns into a pro 2A ruling.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Courts in one state are under no obligation to note decisions in another state.

It is EXACTLY on point with those barred by pre-'98 convictions by Chapter 180, however.

When I originally read this decision, it brought to mind the poor SOBs who lost their RKBA because of the Lautenberg Amendment. Of course, this state ruling has no bearing on a Federal law, but I wish it did. However, as my wise grandfather used to say, "wish in one hand, shit in the other ... see which piles up quicker."

Also, wasn't the Lautenberg Amendment ruled on appeal NOT to be an ex-post facto application of law since it was a "regulation" or some such nonsense?