Northern Mariana Islands Handgun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment rules Federal Judge

[Midwest]

Federal Judge: Northern Mariana Islands Handgun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment


A Federal judge ruled that the handgun ban for the U.S. territory officially known as the "Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands" violates the Second Amendment.

This territory of nearly 54,000 residents had a ban “from possession and importing handguns and handgun ammunition.”. The suit was bought by the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) after an incident where a wife of an American citizen was attacked and filed suit to keep a gun for self defense purposes.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...a-islands-handgun-ban-violates-2nd-amendment/



"Manglona is the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

According PR Newswire, Manglona ruled the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is bound by the restrictions placed upon it by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And Manglona particularly cited the fact that the CNMI handgun ban violates Second Amendment protections."


This is another win for our side and will have a direct impact on the 9th circuit court according to the article. The article goes on to say that solidifies the Heller and McDonald victories.

"On March 28 SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb told Breitbart News the ruling “will have a direct impact in the 9th Circuit [and] it is another affirmation of the Second Amendment victories in Heller and McDonald."
.

 

[Red Wind]

Another win for the RKBA. It's all good.

Thank you, Midwest, for keeping us on top of all the latest judicial gun happenings.

 

[danez71]

"On March 28 SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb told Breitbart News the ruling “will have a direct impact in the 9th Circuit [and] it is another affirmation of the Second Amendment victories in Heller and McDonald."

Which 9th Circuit case is he referring to?

 

[Midwest]

Which 9th Circuit case is he referring to?

I was hoping someone who is more knowledgeable than me could explain it.
.

 

[danez71]

I was hoping someone who is more knowledgeable than me could explain it.
.

Come to think about it.... he didn't say "case", I did.

There have been some storage laws passed in some cities. They got around the Heller ruling by saying (in short) either carry it in your house or lock it up.

But I haven't found and read the CNMI case you started this great about to see what could be he link to he 9th.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

A link to the [strike]decision[/strike] complaint:

http://ia601401.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.nmid.4365/gov.uscourts.nmid.4365.1.0.pdf

from:

Eugene Volokh (UCLA School of Law), "Last handgun ban in an American jurisdiction struck down", The Volokh Conspiracy, 4:00PM 28 Mar 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ban-in-an-american-jurisdiction-struck-down/

danez71 has the link to the decision.

 

[danez71]

That's the complaint.

Here's the decision
http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.n...16/03/60-160328-Radich-Order-Granting-MSJ.pdf


I belive its the Peruta case that he's referring to - requiring a permit coupled with good cause. Judge says family protection is enough 'good cause'.




It's late (early) for me to summarize more.

 

[Midwest]

Here is the 17 page decision

"Case 1:14-cv-00020 Document 60 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 17"


http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.n...16/03/60-160328-Radich-Order-Granting-MSJ.pdf


Here is picture of the couple



.

 

[old lady new shooter]

deleted

 

[old lady new shooter]

My favorite line from the decision: "Put simply, a government’s authority to act is limited by its duty not to violate individual rights."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

It is my opinion that
(A) In the past gun control was allowed because there was a wide held belief that the benefits of gun control outweighed the cost of gun rights infringement.
(B) Increasingly today, it is seen that gun control has not paid off (sunset of the AWB, repeal of MD & NY ballistic databases) and the cost of gun rights infringement is too high.

I think we will see more decisions clarifying this sea change in views on gun control v gun rights.

 

[danez71]

I hope your right.... and agree generally.

I've said it before, if Peruta stands, I see it as the almost unstoppable tipping point nationally to Shall Issue without a subjective "good cause".

That's not to say that the antis and some legistors will give up, just that there will be too many Circuits agreeing.

The lawyers have been awesome IMO. They continue to push the right cases and get favorable rulings and then use those rulings (or parts of) to build off of.


If it wasn't for the fact that restrictions get passed faster than they can be fought, we'd be sitting pretty well by now.


Fortunately though, 1 favorable case can affect several restrictions/hurdles as it did in this case.

 

[danez71]

Lawmakers approve $1,000 tax on handguns in lieu of total ban

http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/


Here a link to S.B 19-94 itself.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eb.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE9hQbhi73L8Q26rr10pbelbvZEJw


A link to a local news source of CNMI http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/85161-gun-law-measure-now-with-governor

In a reply to the court order barring enforcement, the Commonwealth Senate passed a strict 57-page gun control proposal last week to which the House added a $1,000 per pistol excise tax, which the Senate approved unanimously on April 7, sending the bill to Gov. Ralph DLG Torres for expected signature.

SB 19-94 will

• Make gun free zones around schools, government buildings and places of worship
  
• Requires the mandatory use of gun locks for firearms not in use
  
• Prohibits carrying of firearms outside of the home.
  
• Requires licenses to possess gun / ammo.
  
• Prohibits Title II firearms and basically makes an AWB like California and New York.
  
• No centerfire rifles larger than .223 and no shotgun in a caliber larger than .410 gauge will be allowed.
  
• Mags capped at 10 rounds.
  
• 15 years prison time for violation - A single round of ammo with out the proper license can be a $2500 fine.

Quickly reading it over,

Essentially, their Legislators cited all of the anti 2A laws other cities/states/D.C have made or stated in court (whether they won or lost) and say that they agree with them and therefore they're going to adopt all of their garbage, add more to it, and add $1000 fee despite that income is low (that about 1 months wages there.)



The Pro 2A lawyers are waiting for the Governor to sign and circling the wagons.

 

[Red Wind]

Quickly reading it over,

Essentially, their Legislators cited all of the anti 2A laws other cities/states/D.C have made or stated in court (whether they won or lost) and say that they agree with them and therefore they're going to adopt all of their garbage, add more to it, and add $1000 fee despite that income is low (that about 1 months wages there.)

There seems to be a very slow learning curve in the Islands!

 

[danez71]

^^^^

I'm hoping that one of the lawyer types here can give brief input as to if this will have to be a whole new case (fairly safe assumption that it will be challenged and by the same pro 2A lawyers) that will likely last years and years or if some kind of 'fast track' action can be taken.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The initial decision brought Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands in line with the Territory of Guam (the southern and largest Marianas Island).

Did Guam have any problems from legally imported/sold/bought/owned handguns (you did have to have a WIC which I think stood for Weapons Identification Card kinda like the Illinois FOID)?

CNMI was the last US jurisdiction with a handgun ban. The last handgun ban in a US jurisdiction, fallen due to Heller'08/McDonald'10. This list of proposed restrictions sounds like Bloomberg's Everytown's wish list. Reads to me like all the policies that CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 said had no measurable impact on crime, and then some.

 

[Midwest]

The initial decision brought Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands in line with the Territory of Guam (the southern and largest Marianas Island).

Did Guam have any problems from legally imported/sold/bought/owned handguns (you did have to have a WIC which I think stood for Weapons Identification Card kinda like the Illinois FOID)?

CNMI was the last US jurisdiction with a handgun ban. The last handgun ban in a US jurisdiction, fallen due to Heller'08/McDonald'10. This list of proposed restrictions sounds like Bloomberg's Everytown's wish list. Reads to me like all the policies that CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 said had no measurable impact on crime, and then some.

All I know is Guam passed shall issue in 2014

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/05/guam-shall-issue-becomes-law.html

What The Northern Mariana Islands is proposing is NOT at all in line with Guam.

Guam Shall Issue Requirements


"The Bill 296-32 is now Public Law 32-150. Here are some of the features of the new law:

Requires that a permit for a concealed firearm be issued if requirements are met.
Includes all handguns, rifles, and shotguns
Includes all concealed weapons other than firearms
Is only available to residents of Guam
Puts a limit on the required, non-refundable fee of $100
Requires issue within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application
Includes methods to regain rights previously lost
Is valid for a period of three years
Provides for a 180 day grace period to renew the permit
Requires a color photograph
Requires fingerprints; if legible fingerprints cannot be made, can be issued by check of ID
Applicants must be 21 years of age
Requires a desire for a legal means to carry a firearm for lawful self defense
DD214, NRA, or State Hunter Safety Courses among others, meet training course requirement
Reason for denial required to be given
Notice of renewal requirement will be mailed out 90 days before expiration

Guam now joins the 41 states that have laws that require the issuance of a permit if the legal requirements are met. "

.

 

[230RN]

As a frequent poster on the Hawaiian gun site, I am observing this thread with great interest. As far as I can tell, that decision may positively affect the Peruta (and Baker*) cases in the Ninth. Hopefully.

Yes, the reaction of the "authorities" seems to follow the D.C. and Chicago reactions to the Heller and McDonald cases.

I hope the "infection" of gun rights spreads to the Phillipines.

Just observing.

Note my signature line.

Terry, 230RN

* Chris Baker has a case pending in the Ninth which is somewhat similar in principle to Peruta's. As it happens, Chris is the owner of the Hawaiian gun site I mentioned.

REF:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?action=refferals;refferedby=23

 

[old lady new shooter]

Can anyone explain how "Prohibits carrying of firearms outside of the home." doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't "bear" mean carry?

Also, "outside the home" doesn't even make an exception for gun ranges???????

 

[Gary Slider]

old lady new shooter, The bill spells this out in it so it can be taken outside the home but only in specific circumstances. I don't like the word carry. That does not mean on you or laying on the seat. It means transporting it legally. That wording in the bill is below where it can be possess legally.

(b) A person lawfully in possession of a firearm may carry the firearm:

(1) Within the registrant's home or on land belonging to the registrant;

(2) On the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission;

(3) While it is being used for lawful sporting purposes, such as target practice at a shooting range or
shooting gallery;

(4) While it is being used for lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes with a license or permit while
engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing;

(5) While it is kept at the registrant's place of business; or

(6) While it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by § 209 of this Chapter or
federal law and in accordance with the requirements of said law.

(c) A violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $2,500 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
________________________

Title 6, Division 10 § 206. Lawful transportation of firearms.

(a) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by the law from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be pennitted to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry the firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry the firearm if the firearm is transported in accordance with this section.

(b) (1) If the transportation of the firearm is by a vehicle, the firearm shall be unloaded, and neither the
firearm nor any ammunition being transported shall be readily accessible or directly accessible from
the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle.

(2) If the transporting vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the
firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or
console, and the firearm shall be unloaded.

( c) If the transportation of the firearm is in a manner other than in a vehicle, the firearm shall be:

(1) Unloaded;

(2) Inside a locked container; and

(3) Separate from any ammunition.

(d) It shall be a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any person to knowingly transport a firearm in violation of this section.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Gary Slider
Thank you for posting the additional sections, that does make things much clearer.

My point about "bear" and "carry" was more philosophical and could be expressed differently, i.e. are you really "bearing" arms if you aren't allowed to be armed for the purpose of defending yourself outside your home?

 

[CLP]

Perhaps they'd develop a different attitude if the U.S. wasn't their bodyguard/benefactor and they had to fend for themselves.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

With respect to "bear" and "carry", I look back to the wording of the Second Amendment for my guidance/interpretation, which ends thusly:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


It says both "keep" as well as "bear". That's pretty darned all-inclusive, it seems to me.


As to what the lawmakers have approved in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands following the court decision, what they're going to find out is exactly what it feels like to be slapped in the face once it's challenged in the courts.

And, while people may be upset that this kind of stuff happens, let's keep in mind that such a clear cut case of restrictions, in the manner that they've imposed, can really benefit us in the long run when they're slapped down. Consider, for example, simply the $1,000 per gun tax. Slapping this down would effectively slap down ANY such "sin tax" in the future. This is important, as taxing things like guns AND ammunition excessively is one of the gun control measures being constantly bantered about.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


It says both "keep" as well as "bear". That's pretty darned all-inclusive, it seems to me.

That's what I meant. "Keep" to me means, own, have in your home. "Bear" means, have available for self-defense.

taxing things like guns AND ammunition excessively is one of the gun control measures being constantly bantered about.

Meanwhile here in California there is going to be a proposition on the November ballot to require a background check for purchasing ammunition. (I am not making this up.)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Meanwhile here in California there is going to be a proposition on the November ballot to require a background check for purchasing ammunition. (I am not making this up.)

They have talked about this on and off over the years and it came up a lot last year, but it isn't on the ballot yet and doesn't appear to be in the list of propositions.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions