New Jersey Assemblywoman proposes unconstitutional Britain style handgun ban bill

[rangersmith82]

Source: 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.

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

---

Heller vs DC made such a law illegal and viloates the 2nd admendment of the United States Constitution.

[Ian David]

1. Good. Maybe if Heller vs DC is tested and stands up, the wingnuts will finally feel safe.

Notice I said wingnuts... NOT gun nuts.

[scytherius]

2. I have never understood the proclivity of politicians . .. .

to propose bills so blatantly unconstitutional. I mean I understand doing so if you want to test a decision (i.e. Roe v. Wade) but this kind of thing is a waste. It's like COPA. Everyone wants children protected. But they pass something so blatantly unconstitutional that, consequently, nothing gets passed.

[guntard]

29. They are pandering to their own constituencies

They can send out newsletters declaring they are "doing something" about whatever their pet issue happens to be, without actually risking getting political blood on their hands.

[TheWraith]

43. It's exactly like COPA, or mandatory minimums for drug possession.

It's the appearence of being "tough on crime" without actually having to do anything about it.

[bluestateguy]

3. What a bossy bill

mandates, "must", "subject to", "penalty", "imprisonment", more rules, more regulations, more harassments.

[ShortnFiery]

4. People don't need a handgun for home protection. There could be exceptions for certain

qualifying groups of people, police officers, other people who must cary cash/jewels, etc.

Plus, if you MUST OWN a handgun, check it into the Armory at the firing range after use.

Hand guns are made for KILLING not for hunting NOR for home protection.

Good for Assemblywoman L. GRACE SPENCER. :yourock: :applause:

You want home protection? Get a big dog and a shotgun. :thumbsup:

[Tejas]

5. "You want home protection? Get a big dog and a shotgun."

So the average 70 year old female in an apartment that prohibits pets ........




Oh nevermind, it's fairly evident you could care less about reality.

[Tejas]

6. on second thought, your entire post was

really all just a joke huh?

I think you left out a :sarcasm: or three.

[rangersmith82]

7. Think before you post forest...

n/t

[jmg257]

9. Hard to conceal that dog and shotgun when out in public, no? Aren't we entitled

to protection then too?

[iverglas]

10. I'll join in the applause

I just like to see good people doing good stuff, wherever it is.

[Raskolnik]

34. Does it matter to you that her proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional? n/t

[iverglas]

36. nah

Not much more than it would worry me that it would be unconstitutional for a US state to permit same-sex marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted to prohibit it.

I wasn't reared to worship that particular piece of parchment, or the special-interest groups that originated it so very long ago.

And I don't see any reason for it to be interpreted to preclude such legislation in any event.

Certainly not just because of what a few right-wing appointees happen to have said this year.

[Raskolnik]

37. Your disdain for the rule of law is troubling.

We're not talking about "worshipping" a particular piece of parchment. We're talking about the rule of law in a constitutional republic. If the state is allowed to infringe on portions of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, whenever they feel it expedient, we end up with...well we end up right where Bush wanted to take us.

In any event, you want to have it both ways: you say that is doesn't matter whether its unconstituional, but then you chicken out and say that you don't see any reason why the Constitution would preclude such legislation in any event. Obviously you aren't a fan of Heller, but if you can come up with an interpretation of the decision that would permit such a ban as sweeping as that being discussed, I'd be very impressed with your legal gymnastic skills indeed.

And, while I have no love for Scalia et al, statements like Certainly not just because of what a few right-wing appointees happen to have said this year. show a remarkably shortsighted (and amnesiac) view of "controversial" SC decisions. There have been many, many SC decisions which expanded civil rights in this nation, and when the throwbacks resisted those changes by arguing "why should I have to follow what a couple of liberals on the SC said," the answer was found in the fact that our nation is a nation of laws, not of men. You may dismiss that out of hand, but in the long run, it's the best way to protect civil liberties.

[iverglas]

41. hahaha

You asked whether it would bother me. Not what my opinion was as to whether unconstitutional doings should be permitted.

You'll note I also contested the premise of your question, which was that such acts are (qualifiers) unconstitutional.

If I don't agree that they're unconstitutional, the question is moot and the answer is mu.

If a constitution contains bad things, they're bad things, whether they're in a constitution or not.


There have been many, many SC decisions which expanded civil rights in this nation, and when the throwbacks resisted those changes by arguing "why should I have to follow what a couple of liberals on the SC said," the answer was found in the fact that our nation is a nation of laws, not of men. You may dismiss that out of hand, but in the long run, it's the best way to protect civil liberties.

I might dismiss something out of hand, but that's not what I did, so your comments are irrelevant.

The fact that the interpretation in question came from the sources it came from is good reason to take a very careful look at it. So far, I don't think anybody really knows what it means. So there's a right. Yee hah. There's a right to free speech, too, and there are still gazillions of laws abridging it.

Who's to say that the proposed law in question here is unconstitutional? You haven't even said it yourself.

[Raskolnik]

42. Again, I understand you don't care about disregarding the rule of law. That's what I find troubling

You asked whether it would bother me.

Yes, and the fact that a state actor proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws *doesn't* bother you indicates a short-sighted and amnesiac view of the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

If I don't agree that they're unconstitutional, the question is moot and the answer is mu.

Well, do think it would be unconstitutional or not? I believe that the law as it is found here http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A1000/681_I1.HTM is unquestionably unconstitutional, and I honestly don't know how a reasonable legal case could be made that is isn't, considering Heller.

The fact that the interpretation in question came from the sources it came from is good reason to take a very careful look at it.

I agree. Take a very close look at it. And if you disagree with the reasoning, go ahead and make your argument why you think it was a bad ruling. I don't know that I've ever seen you even attempt to do that, so I'm not sure what legal deficiencies you have found in the opinion, if any.

Who's to say that the proposed law in question here is unconstitutional?

Again, if you can read Heller in such a way to make this law constitutional, I'd pay cash money to see those legal contortions.


edited for slightly less snark (there's enough pissy in the world without me adding)

[iverglas]

46. and I understand that I got yer goat

Well done, me.

The flippant response "nah" generally indicates, hmm, flippancy.

If the Heller decision does not allow regulation of firearms possession in ways that are in the obvious and overriding public interest, then it's a crap decision. I don't actually need to memorize it, to know that.

[Raskolnik]

47. You haven't even read Heller, have you?

That would explain why you are unwilling/unable to discuss it in anything other than hypothetical terms.

You'd think that someone so eager to lecture others about U.S. firearm policy would take the time to actually read the decision, but I guess I'm not the boss of you.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[iverglas]

50. think what you like

I've read gazillions of US Supreme Court decisions. Some of them are very worth reading, and quite fascinating. This particular one ... I've read bits. I'll get around to reading it start to finish some day when I'm really bored and looking to be more bored.

Nobody here yet has expressed any sound opinion about what the action effects of that decision are when it comes to what will and will not be permissible under it, so I guess your guess is as good as my guess.

[jody]

11. Are you a member of the Beetle Battalion, variety gun-grabber?

[ShortnFiery]

12. I own shotguns and rifles. Unless you're a target shooter, guns only useful for KILLING.

Many young children would be alive today if mommy/daddy didn't leave their loaded hangun under the bed or in the closet.

I have no love lost for handguns. :shrug:

[jody]

13. There are over 800 thousand sworn LEO in the US and they all carry handguns because they are the

most effective, efficient arm for self-defense.

The 2nd Amendment protects the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Self-defense means being prepared to defend one's life by killing the attacking criminal if absolutely necessary.

I acknowledge your position "I have no love lost for handguns" but that in no way authorizes government to infringe upon my right to keep and bear handguns for self-defense.

[57_TomCat]

44. Jody, I hate to disagree but...

handguns are carried by those 800 thousand LEOs (including me) because they are the most easily carried. They are not the most effective or efficient arms for self defense simply the most convenient.

Cops carry handguns because rifles and shotguns over the shoulder are a pain in the rear for routine police work AND they tend to scare the sheep.

Of course an argument can be made that the handgun is a superior option when a rifle or shotgun is not appropriate and there are many situations where a handgun is a better choice though still less effective or efficient.

[jody]

48. I use effective and efficient ala Peter Drucker who said "effective" is doing the right thing and

"efficient" is doing a thing right.

In that sense self-defense under varied conditions requires the arm be quickly accessible.

Handguns are far superior in "effectiveness" compared to rifles ans shotguns as you acknowledge "because they are the most easily carried. . . . simply the most convenient."

They are also efficient compared to alternate arms.

Perhaps you and I do not disagree if we use Drucker's definition as I intended.

[jmg257]

22. I like pistols-maybe more then long guns. Not only are they also fun to shoot, they are the best

choice for "portable" defense. Of course the shotgun is indeed handy for "home protection", if one is in need of that.
Starting to appreciate a good carbine like the Beretta storm too - you can get a bit more accurate distance out of it, and still have 15 rounds of 9mm. My son really enjoys it too.


Anyway, certainly don't see why one is any more or less "safe" then the other re:kids.

[gorfle]

28. I love my Storm.

Starting to appreciate a good carbine like the Beretta storm too - you can get a bit more accurate distance out of it, and still have 15 rounds of 9mm. My son really enjoys it too.

I've always enjoyed pistol target shooting over rifle target shooting, but my Beretta Cx4 in is a blast to shoot. Holds 15 rounds of 9mm, and it points swift and easy. I shoot it with the stock iron sites and I can absolutely drill targets at 25 yards. I love the ergonomics and it is easy to clean. The Cx4 is so small it's almost like shooting a pistol.

[slackmaster]

23. I have handguns and long guns that I've never fired

They and the ones I do shoot are all serving me well by appreciating in value while most of my other investments are in the tank.

:hi:

[guntard]

30. I own about 30 handguns, and so far I have never killed anyone or anything

Am I doing it wrong?

[rrneck]

32. Yep. Watch more

Charles Bronson movies. Don't you know you're supposed to work all day and then stalk the streets at night looking for an excuse to off the scum of society?

[tburnsten]

39. Killing is often a useful thing

Like when you want to eat some high-quality meat, but can't afford to buy a year's worth of retail priced, possibly ill-raised meat. Then killing an animal or two can save you a lot of money while feeding yourself and/or your family for some time, while providing better nutrition than "ordinary" meat.



Or when you get herded into the walk-in cooler of a Wendy's with all the other customers and employees by a pair of armed men, and you realize it isn't going to end well. That is an excellent time to have and be proficient with a handgun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. A shotgun has a good chance of hitting my dogs, no thanks, I'll keep my handguns.

[Howzit]

26. Handguns are made to use when your rifle is out of ammo

They are also useful for defending the inside of a building after someone with mal intent has already entered; especially in close quarters where a long gun could get hung up on objects in the vicinity.

In the military, handguns are not used to attack the enemy but to fend off an attack when there is nothing better to use: ergo defensive use, or preventing your from being killed rather than for killing someone else.

If handguns are made for killing, how come you are happy for the cops to have them? Is killing part of their job description - what happened to "serve and protect"?

Shotguns are made for killing birds, but if you please it can be used to kill people.

The bottom line is that the tool does not matter; only the intent of the user matters.

[bluestateguy]

33. I know I trust the government to "decide" if I'm "allowed" to own a handgun

I could just see some redneck, racist town where the local sheriff conveniently decides that blacks, gays , Muslims and Arabs are not allowed to own guns, while white Christians are allowed waivers to have a handgun.

[Raskolnik]

35. Do you think its a good idea in general for local politicians to advocate for unconstitutional laws?

[tburnsten]

38. What is the difference between shooting someone

legitimately for attacking you in your own home with a shotgun or rifle vs a handgun? Aside from the fact that they are almost certainly fucked if shot with a long gun, and stand a very good chance of survival if shot with a handgun (something like 80% of people who are shot with a handgun survive). On top of that, most homes and apartments are not exactly ideal places to try and deploy a (minimum, most are significantly longer) 26" long rifle or shotgun when someone is causing the sort of trouble that only an armed response can quell.


And I have never been to a range with an armory before, not including Army ranges.

[57_TomCat]

45. Handguns are NOT made for killing.

In fact they are rather poor killers. About 75% of handgun wounds in people are NOT fatal. Many handguns are made specificly FOR hunting AND others made FOR home and self defense. Handguns as a class might be the perfect weapon for intimidation and other criminal activity but they also are the perfect weapon for a variety of sporting uses, hunting and self defense out of the home.

I keep a handgun by the bed if I need to respond to a situation where having a hand available for opening doors, holding a light or cell phone or even moving my son to the master/safe room. When in the safe room the handgun is a secondary weapon. My rifle is pointed at the door until the responding LE are on site.

I can support more controls on handguns when applied in a fair manner to avoid interfereing with lawful use. Keeping them locked up in a gun club armory is NOT a control I can support.

[iverglas]

52. so let us be more nuanced

Many handguns are made specificly FOR hunting AND others made FOR home and self defense.

What does that mean? There's no verb in that last bit. Made for DOING what?

Made for SHOOTING AT animals, in the first case.

Made for ... waving around while making a lot of noise, in the second case?

[57_TomCat]

53. Yep.

You win another kewpie doll. :)

[jody]

8. Does the bill mandate sentences and that they be served after all other sentences are completed?

Asked also in other thread re this topic.

[rangersmith82]

15. New Jersey Assemblywoman proposes unconstitutional Britain style handgun ban 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.

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

[Possumpoint]

16. Unconstitutional

Nothing else needs to be said.

[madmom]

17. "Page cannot be found"

[county worker]

18. This gives us a black eye. It strengthens the belief that liberals want to take guns away

from everyone. It helps the NRA to raise funds and run candidates against us.

[alexandria]

21. Yep it sure does.

We get into power and they give ammo to the right.
I believe this was Clinton's undoing when he started doing the assault weapon ban..

[slackmaster]

24. Yes it does

I wish the anti-gun clowns would STFU, or better yet start their own party and stop ruining things for ours.

[tburnsten]

40. It also forces the NRA to add yet another Dem to their list of anti-gun candidates

They do support Dem candidates who are strong on gun rights or who are strong at not voting for retarded anti-gun laws. I know it seems like they are constantly agitating against us, but in reality it is all based on statements and voting records, not just choosing one party to back.

[rangersmith82]

19. link fixed

Sorry about that

[jody]

20. Does the bill mandate sentences and that they be served after all other sentences are completed?

I couldn't find that.

[Indy Lurker]

25. Maybe they are trying to get Heller incorperated n/t

[bossy22]

27. this bill

is pre-heller....it was filed 1/8/08


i doubt any politician with any sense will propose a handgun ban anymore...there is no benefit to spending millions of dollars to find out its unconstitutional

[Howzit]

31. Read the NJ constitution here

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES


1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

b. The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question...................

[jody]

49. Gun-grabbers try to misinterpret such simple statements as "All persons are by nature free and

independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty".

An "unalienable right" can never be given away by a citizen and a "natural right" means it does not depend on the divine right of kings or government.

Now that's an inconvenient truth gun-grabbers have been trying to deny by rolling their balls full of gun-ban lies.

[iverglas]

51. dog but you are incoherent and obnoxious at the same time, aren't you?

Quite a skill.

An "unalienable right" can never be given away by a citizen and a "natural right" means it does not depend on the divine right of kings or government.

Then when the fuck are you going to explain how "felons" may be denied the right to possess firearms???

Unalienable means exactly what you say it means. So explain yourself.

Sadly, "natural right" means bibbitybobbityboo, actually.