Court says 2nd Amendment doesn’t trump NJ’s strict gun laws


#1

So now, every state can pick and choose which Rights don’t apply to them?

- black voters
- women voters
- abortion on demand

Anyone wish to add to the list?

A Bergen County man has lost his bid to fight the confiscation of his guns and ammunition following a domestic violence arrest and charges that he had high-capacity magazines and hollow-point ammunition.

An appellate decision on Tuesday upheld a Superior Court judge’s earlier ruling that Arthur Vinogradsky was no longer qualified to be a gun owner even though the charges against him were eventually dropped.

In June 2013,Vinogradsky’s wife got a temporary restraining order against her husband. As a matter of course, police removed the guns from their home. As the weapons were removed, police arrested the defendant for possession of high capacity magazines and hollow point bullets.

The wife later dismissed her complaint and the husband completed a pretrial intervention program, which spared him a criminal conviction on the weapons charges. But the judge moved forward with stripping him of gun ownership rights, finding that he assaulted his wife and committed a crime.

The decision acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. But according to the courts, the Constitution does not trump “states’ enforcement of their ‘longstanding
prohibitions’ on firearm possession,” and “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Court says 2nd Amendment doesn’t trump NJ’s strict gun laws


#2

[quote=“silliessis, post:1, topic:48791”]
So now, every state can pick and choose which Rights don’t apply to them?

- black voters
- women voters
- abortion on demand

Anyone wish to add to the list?

Court says 2nd Amendment doesn’t trump NJ’s strict gun laws
[/quote]Just another gun grab


#3

This is why you should never vote Democrat.


#4

If what this “judge” says is true, then no State is obligated to abstain from “cruel and unusual punishment”, permit abortion-on-demand or even allow freedom of speech, religion, etc. They can just pass laws that override anything the Constitution prohibits.


#5

#6

The valid interests of We The People of the United States supersedes any and all New Jersey laws that infringe upon the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

There are really only one or two valid reasons for having a fedgov.

To prevent the states from depriving citizens of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The second is for the protection of the country.

Notice how the gun grabbers ignore “Ruled Upon” law … Even when the law is affirmed by a Radical/Leftist court?

“If ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain for the 2-1 majority, quoting the Second Amendment.

“One cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the state is permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal


#7

The Ninth Circus actually said that?:Thud:


#8

Post-14th amendment. Pre-14th ammendment, states were supposed to write their own bill of rights, which would be the standard for how the issue would be judged if it was a State’s law that was in contention.

This was the case, as States in the 18th century didn’t think the Federal Government’s bill of rights went far enough, and wanted to make longer, more inclusive lists of their own wording & design.

Personally, I prefer this. If we still did things that way, we could have preserved liberty in at least a handful of states today, rather than just having the Federal government gradually pass or sanction oppression on us wholesale.