Blatantly Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.

ManBearPig

member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
151
Apparently a New Jersey congresswoman didn't get the memo about the decison on Heller vs DC, because she has introduced the following bill:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A1000/681_I1.HTM

This bill restricts the sale, importation, possession and carrying of handguns except by certain authorized persons. Antique handguns and handguns determined by the Superintendent of State Police to be collectibles, commemoratives or curios are exempted. Authorized persons would include those presently permitted to possess and carry handguns for work-related purposes, including law enforcement officers and members of the military. The bill also provides, however, that a homeowner or a storeowner may acquire and possess a handgun for self-protection if they can demonstrate a "justifiable need." In addition, members of licensed pistol clubs would be permitted to purchase handguns, but those handguns must be delivered to, and remain in the possession of, the club.

If an owner for any reason becomes ineligible to lawfully possess a handgun, he is required to deliver it to the superintendent, a trooper at a State Police station, or an officer at a municipal police department within five days of losing his eligibility. The disqualified owner may either voluntarily surrender the handgun in accordance with N.J.S.2C:39-12 or attempt to sell the handgun to an individual who may lawfully purchase it. The bill grants a disqualified owner 60 days in which to sell the handgun, but specifies that during that period the handgun must remain in the custody of the superintendent, the municipal police, or the county prosecutor. If the disqualified owner is unable to sell the handgun during that period, the handgun becomes subject to the forfeiture provisions of N.J.S.2C:64-1 et seq. A disqualified owner who fails to turn in his handgun within the five day period would be guilty of a violation of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:39-5. A violation of that subsection is a crime of the third degree and includes a mandatory term of imprisonment.

Owners who surrender their handguns are eligible for compensation payments. Under the bill, ten percent of the proceeds derived from the forfeiture of cash and property seized in connection with illegal activities are to be deposited in a "Handgun Surrender Compensation Fund." The amount of compensation to be paid to owners who voluntarily surrender their handguns is to be set forth in a schedule developed by the superintendent.

Finally, the bill provides that only antique handguns, or handguns that the superintendent has classified as collectible, commemorative, or curio may be passed on to an heir or legatee. In all other cases, the administrator of the estate must surrender the deceased owner's handgun to either the superintendent or the local chief of police. If qualified, the estate may be entitled to compensation from the "Handgun Surrender Compensation Fund" for the surrendered handgun.
 
The proposed bill would only be blatantly unconstitutional if it violates the New Jersey constitution. Until the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, the Heller decision has no effect on state laws.
 
Well then it looks like Heller is going to be incorporated real quick. If this bill becomes law, it will be an instant lawsuit and an instant win for us.
 
Does Heller count as precedent even though the 2nd Amendment is unincorporated? What I mean is, can it be used as a legal argument vs. a state constitution?
 
gc70 said:
The proposed bill would only be blatantly unconstitutional if it violates the New Jersey constitution. Until the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, the Heller decision has no effect on state laws.

See, that doesn't even make sense. If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated against the states," then what about the other Amendments? Do they need to be officially incorporated, too? I think not -- the incorporation is assumed. Does the 1st Amendment not apply to anyone living in any State of the US? That doesn't even make sense, because it definitely does. Are the 4th or 5th Amendments not incorporated? Of course they are.

It doesn't make logical sense that every Constitutional Amendment is "assumed" to have been incorporated to the states except the 2nd Amendment. The 14th Amendment automatically incorporated the other Amendments when it was ratified. We don't need the Supreme Court to sprinkle its holy water on it for the rest of the Amendments -- including the Bill of Rights -- to apply on the State level.

I mean, what part of the United States is part of the United States but is not one of the 50 States? Just Washingon, DC, right? (I guess PR, Guam, etc.) So is the 2nd Amendment only incorporated in DC but not the 50 States? Hogwash.
 
Yosemite Sam said:
See, that doesn't even make sense. If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated against the states," then what about the other Amendments? Do they need to be officially incorporated, too? I think not -- the incorporation is assumed. Does the 1st Amendment not apply to anyone living in any State of the US? That doesn't even make sense, because it definitely does. Are the 4th or 5th Amendments not incorporated? Of course they are.

It doesn't make logical sense that every Constitutional Amendment is "assumed" to have been incorporated to the states except the 2nd Amendment. The 14th Amendment automatically incorporated the other Amendments when it was ratified. We don't need the Supreme Court to sprinkle its holy water on it for the rest of the Amendments -- including the Bill of Rights -- to apply on the State level.

I mean, what part of the United States is part of the United States but is not one of the 50 States? Just Washingon, DC, right? (I guess PR, Guam, etc.) So is the 2nd Amendment only incorporated in DC but not the 50 States? Hogwash.

You're wrong. I suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
misANTHrope said:

So using this logic, the Bill of Rights isn't really a "positive" list of rights that Americans are guaranteed but more of a "Do not touch" list for the federal government? In other words, the Bill of Rights basically just means "Hey you, Federal Government, you're not allowed to pass a new law that abridges any of these rights." ???

That seems like such a mind game to me.

In my mind, as an American, it's a list of protected, pre-existing natural rights that humans have that are inalienable. I have the right to speak my mind just as much as I have a right to defend myself so I'm not murdered.

What gives?
 
The bill also provides, however, that a homeowner or a storeowner may acquire and possess a handgun for self-protection if they can demonstrate a "justifiable need."

Somehow I doubt that the basic reason anyone needs to carry, "because I live in a society where bad people routinely assault others," will be accepted.
 
In my mind, as an American, it's a list of protected, pre-existing natural rights that humans have that are inalienable. I have the right to speak my mind just as much as I have a right to defend myself so I'm not murdered.

The Bill of Rights was written as a set of basic human rights, given by god, and as a reminder to governments that "what god has given, no man shall take away."
 
The incorporation of the 2A tot he states could pose certain problems, which might be why the supreme court has left it alone.
For the right to keep guns there in no problem, but the right to bear. If taken as meaning that an individual has the right to be in the militia, as much as someone has the right to be on a jury, then the state will not be allowed to prevent someone being in the militia.
So if anyone wants to join up, the state cannot turn around and say that this person is no suitable, or is dangerous. Currently only the federal govt cannot prevent people from joining.
This would mean that discipline in the militia could be harmed, as people could do what they like and never ever get kicked out, unless they are charged with something or other and convicted of a felony.
 
Actually Heller upheld the power of the state to impose "reasonable restrictions" on ownership etc. The only thing off limits was an outright ban.
THis bill does not constitute an outright ban. So even if Heller were incorporated it would probably pass muster.
Stupid, yes. Unconstitutional no.
 
<rant>

The anti's don't care about the Constitution or the Bill of rights. They don't care about precedence or the Heller decision or state's rights or personal freedoms or anything else. They are after power. They don't give a rat's a$$ about logic, reason, facts, data or statistics and in fact frequently corrupt those very things to push their agenda. We tend to focus on the second amendment in this forum which is entirely appropriate, however, their agenda goes well beyond that and is totalitarian in the extreme. They are after the entire Bill of Rights, nothing less. In their view, the second amendment has go go first because it is the one that could prevent them from getting the others. :fire::fire::fire:

</rant>

Thank you for allowing me to blow off steam. Have a good day. Back to work.
 
Last edited:
Even in NJ this bill will never pass, amongst many other things at first glance....

No grandfathering provision

It is illegal in NJ to hand over actual control of a handgun to a third party such as a "licensed pistol club" without it going through a sale, with the concomitant Permit to Purchase having been sourced and used as part of a sale.

Permits to Purchase can take anything up to a year to be issued by your local PD so the 60 days requirement to sale is patently unenforceable

If this ever did became law it would form the basis of an excellent case to tear a massive hole in NJ's current multiplicity of control laws as being outside the bounds of "reasonable regulation".
 
Bubba, it is a ban because they are making people justify a need to own a hand gun. And you know they are going to say no to target shooting and home defense. And as soon as anyone gets a justifiable need, then other people will use that same reason, and then as soon as they figure out people are using that same reason, they will decided that reason isn't good enough anymore. They aren't going to accept anyone's need.

Then of course, is the problem with not letting people hand down their property to their family after death, and having to have it melted down. This entire bill is treason to the United States.
 
The proposed bill would only be blatantly unconstitutional if it violates the New Jersey constitution.

?

Until the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, the Heller decision has no effect on state laws.

Happened more than a century ago--Fourteenth Amendment.

The proposed bill appears to be blatantly unconstitutional to me, but guess who's going to making all of the nominations to the Federal judiciary branch for a while?
 
The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller said:

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Since Heller, federal cases have been filed requesting the Second Amendment be made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Two such cases are McDonald v. Chicago and Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority.

The issue is also currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King.
 
The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller said:

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Since Heller, federal cases have been filed requesting the Second Amendment be made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Two such cases are McDonald v. Chicago and Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority.

The issue is also currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King.

Interesting. I had read the opinion but I had missed that.

Why have several Illinois municipalities been rushing to amend their laws, starting immediately after Heller?
 
Why have several Illinois municipalities been rushing to amend their laws, starting immediately after Heller?

To avoid being the target of a lawsuit.
 
To avoid being the target of a lawsuit.

And avoid liability for Plaintiffs attorney fees on a case that they will probably lose.

Anyone know how much Gura got for his work in Heller? I know what he was asking, but never saw how much the court awarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top