Site for looking up Court Cases on Firearms

[Midwest]

Site for looking up Court Cases on Firearms as well as other cases

I found this while doing some more research on gun control in New Jersey. I found the three challenges to New Jersey's 1966 Firearms ID law in "Burton Vs Sills" 1967-1968-1968 Pt II.

The site is called "Court Listener" and you can search millions of opinions by case name, topic, or citation in over 349 Jurisdictions. Sponsored by the Non-Profit Free Law Project

https://www.courtlistener.com/


"
About CourtListener

CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts. With CourtListener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data."

If anyone is interested in the three challenges to New Jersey's Controversial 1966 Firearms ID Card Law. Here are the following links.

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsup...+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsup...+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

https://www.courtlistener.com/nj/8B...+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

A person asked (on another forum) how can NJ's law stand in light of the Supreme Court decision in 2010. I suggested that a constitutional lawyer might be best to put it into perspective.

If anyone is interested what the NJ Supreme Court had to say in regards of the 1966 FID Law...here are some excepts. Some of this might be an eye opener.


" 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"

"We are satisfied that this gun control law is a proper and reasonable exercise of the State's police powers........"

And this is how New Jersey views gun rights" "Inconvenience, delay and sensitive feelings are not adequate grounds for striking down this legislation and frustrating its good purposes."

"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. "



" 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. "


So the above comments are from the New Jersey Supreme Court 1967-1968 in three separate decisions regarding "Burton Vs Sills" The challenge to the 1966 FID Law.

I was wondering what your comments are (if any) regarding to the ruling and the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

And hopefully you will find the link provided above useful in your researching of important laws regarding firearms as well as other cases.

.

 

[NOMI WASP]

"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. "

This makes me sick. Just like Ben Franklin said "Those that will giveup freedom for sercurity, deserve neither"

NJ is one if not the lowest state of gun owership.... Probably because any gun owner that was there, read the writing on the wall and moved.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Those comments reflect the state of the law as of 1967-1968.

At that time, the controlling federal precedent was United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1876). The Court in Cruikshank held, among other things, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. That was, at the time, consistent with the ruling in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U. S. (7 Pet.) 243 (Supreme Court, 1833) to the effect that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. A New Jersey state court was bound by those United States Supreme Court rulings on the federal question.

It wasn't until later that SCOTUS began to apply, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Right piecemeal to the States. And it wasn't until McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2010) that the rights described by the Second Amendment were applied to the States.

Thank you for finding that site and sharing the URL. I've bookmarked it.