• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Court: Man properly denied gun permits due to wife's record

Knuckle Dragger

Knuckle Dragger

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,299
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
Court: Man properly denied gun permits due to wife's record

Just when you think that NJ can't get any worse and perhaps Massachusetts isn't the worst state. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruling like this coming out of one of our district courts.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A state appellate court has ruled that a southern New Jersey man cannot buy guns because his wife is a convicted felon who's been accused of domestic violence.

In their ruling issued this week, the two-judge panel found that the guns' presence in the man's home would give his wife greater access to firearms, creating an unacceptable threat to public health, safety and welfare. They said the man's Constitutional right to own weapons was "subject to reasonable limitations.
Click to expand...
"
 
wow.

so if i have a felon as a neighbor, work associate or friend, i guess thats also a basis for losing rights?

this country is ****ed and NJ is paving the way
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Court: Man properly denied gun permits due to wife's record

Just when you think that NJ can't get any worse and perhaps Massachusetts isn't the worst state. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruling like this coming out of one of our district courts.

"
Click to expand...

I feel like with MA law already banning access to firearms by unsupervised unlicensed individuals, maybe it would be harder for a court to be this dumb here. Never say never though I guess.
 
Who's to say he wanted to buy a gun(s), and keep them securely stored at his buddy's house? What possible 'access' would his psycho wife have to them, then? What then is the justification for infringing on this man's rights?
 
No different than MA.

Here in MA one can choose between the right to own a gun and the right to remain silent.

In NJ, one can choose between the right to own a gun and the right to stay married to a willing spouse.

Concept is the same: You have multiple rights, but have to choose which one you are going to be allowed to exercise.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Court: Man properly denied gun permits due to wife's record

Just when you think that NJ can't get any worse and perhaps Massachusetts isn't the worst state. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruling like this coming out of one of our district courts.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A state appellate court has ruled that a southern New Jersey man cannot buy guns because his wife is a convicted felon who's been accused of domestic violence.

In their ruling issued this week, the two-judge panel found that the guns' presence in the man's home would give his wife greater access to firearms, creating an unacceptable threat to public health, safety and welfare. They said the man's Constitutional right to own weapons was "subject to reasonable limitations.
Click to expand...

"
Click to expand...

Comforting to know that a judge in NJ of all places gets to decide what is reasonable. [rolleyes]
 
Last edited:
Isn't there a federal precedent on this exact point that came down the other way? I think it was even pre-Heller.
 
StevieP said:
Who's to say he wanted to buy a gun(s), and keep them securely stored at his buddy's house? What possible 'access' would his psycho wife have to them, then? What then is the justification for infringing on this man's rights?
Click to expand...

Well that would mean it is legal to store your firearms at someone else's house, but this is NJ, and that may not be the case. And when I say may not I'm not doing so arbitrarily.

But along this same line,

If he lived in another state prior, and owned firearms, and then moved to NJ, he would be able to keep them, so denying him an FPID would only prevent him from purchasing new ones and do nothing to prevent him from possessing the ones he already owns. In fact, this or something like this already appears to be the case. He already owns firearms.

So the facts do not support the courts reasoning to begin with, not to mention the courts ruling is based on their own made up standard. Sadly though, courts making up their own standard when it comes to the 2A is the rule, not the exception. Heller and McDonald did nothing to change that.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Godfrey v. Police chief of Wellesley (MA appellate court) ruled that while the plaintiff "MAY' have had the right to remain silent when questioned, and while he "MAY" be entitled to recourse for having his LTC revoked for doing so, that recourse is "NOT" restoration of the firearms license.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/35/35massappct42.html
Click to expand...

I'm always reminded of the adage that it only takes one idiot to screw everything up for everyone else.

A case in point is I used to have ATV's and in western mass there are or rather were some really nice trails. I on the other hand have a neighbor that likes to get drunk and go plowing through a wildlife sanctuary. One time he and a bunch of his friends were "partying, i mean drinking" in the woods when they were approached and told it was protected land. They then proceeded to drive around like stupid idiots ripping up the ground and acting very aggresively to the 2 people who were complaining. When the cops were finally called, they took off into the woods to the trailers so they could get out of there fast. Needless to say, the trails have been closing down little by little over the years and now it's just not worth owning an ATV any more.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
First time you've seen this? It's Mr. Boudrie's favorite case!
Click to expand...

I dream of the day we get a similar contemporaneous case, as I would be shocked if Comm2A did not jump in (assuming a generally sympathetic baggage free plaintiff)

I'm always reminded of the adage that it only takes one idiot to screw everything up for everyone else.
Click to expand...
In this case the idiot wore a robe.
 
Didn't Gura just cite Simmons in the MSJ for Dearth? in Simmons, it was made clear that the government cannot compel an individual to choose one civil right at the forfeiture of another.
 
Friday said:
Didn't Gura just cite Simmons in the MSJ for Dearth? in Simmons, it was made clear that the government cannot compel an individual to choose one civil right at the forfeiture of another.
Click to expand...
At the time of Godfrey, the RKBA was not recognized as a right. Even today, there is a battle to have it recognized as a "civil" right rather than just a "right". This has important implications, such as Logan vs. US which is cited as precedent that the RKBA is not a civil right, only the fight to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury counts.

Also, the MA courts do not hesitate to site pre-Heller cases without examining the Helleristic implications on the precedents being used.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
... there is a battle to have it recognized as a "civil" right rather than just a "right". This has important implications, such as Logan vs. US which is cited as precedent that the RKBA is not a civil right, only the fight to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury counts. ...
Click to expand...

If the part in red is it, then what about all of this:

th
civil-rights-1n9vbvn.jpg


???
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
Are Gun Thefts Decreasing Due To "Ghost Guns"?
Replies
7
Views
306
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
292
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Heart-stopping bodycam shows Chicago man, 26, 'open fire on cops' days after firearms court appearance - prompting officers to shoot back 90 times
Replies
29
Views
540
Reptile
Reptile
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
206
Coyote33
Coyote33
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
190
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom