Posted on 05/12/2012 11:26:34 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
Blind N.J. Man Gets Guns Back Years After Police Took Them Away
Judge Rules Steven Hopler's Disability Can't Take Away Right To Bear Arms
ROCKAWAY, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — A blind New Jersey man is declaring victory in a legal battle over his gun collection.
The state confiscated his weapons citing safety, but now a judge’s order — citing the right to bear arms — means he will get them back.
Steven Hopler of Rockaway knows a lot about guns. The 49-year-old has been handling them since childhood, and practices regularly at a local gun range. His aim is incredible, especially considering he’s blind.
“I’ve handled guns for many years — being sighted and being blind — and I’ve never had a problem,” Hopler told CBS 2′s Derricke Dennis on Friday.
But four years ago, Hopler had an accident. He shot himself in the leg. Police responded and took six of his guns, citing safety concerns. They also accused him of drinking too much.
“They had taken the guns that were out in plain sight,” Hopler said.
That episode began a legal battle that wound up in Morris County Superior Court. Prosecutors argued Hopler shouldn’t have guns because he’s a danger. However, a judge ruled otherwise, saying his disability shouldn’t take away his constitutional right to bear arms.
Robert Trautman is Hopler’s attorney, and said police singled out his client.
“The state argued that Steve drinks too much.” Trautman said. “It’s just simply that the police didn’t want Steve Hopler to own firearms because he’s blind and they felt that was improper.”
In a statement, the Morris County prosecutor said “From the outset, there was concern as to whether Mr. Hopler was suitable to possess firearms…we are satisfied that we had our day in court…and no appeals will be filed.”
With the ordeal finally over, Hopler said the victory is about more than guns.
“I wouldn’t say power, [it's] freedom,” he said.
The judge’s order said Hopler’s guns should now be returned. He’ll make arrangements on Monday.
Thank G*D they weren't "thinking".
I am just simply amazed that the weapons still remained to give back to him. That does not happen often.
Sounds like the officials are Hoplerphobic.
>”....they felt that was improper.”
>
>Thank G*D they weren’t “thinking”.
Sad to say, but I think a LOT of our legal system is built on “felt” rather than on thought.
I’ve been trying to find a way to challenge the legitimacy of a state statute that, by my count, violates the State’s Constitution in FIVE ways.
( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2874833/posts )
The thing is, it seems the only way I can really challenge it in court is to gain standing... which for all intents and purposes means violating that statute and then fighting it from a position of weakness: already acknowledging its validity. (There is the possibility of attaching myself onto some case involving the statute, but that seems a gamble at best.)
So, yeah, the only thinking involved in the Judiciary seems to be that done for justifying whatever the Judiciary-as-a-whole feels.
The thing is, it seems the only way I can really challenge it in court is to gain standing... which for all intents and purposes means violating that statute and then fighting it from a position of weakness: already acknowledging its validity. (There is the possibility of attaching myself onto some case involving the statute, but that seems a gamble at best.)
Here's a hint: the meaning of the term "person" in the statute isn't what you think it is. Rather, it's a human being acting in their corporate aspect. What is their corporate aspect? Generally, its a human being who is acting as an officer of a corporation, AND representing that corporation by the actions in question.
Seems easy to get around? Well, the Courts have ruled that the State can PRESUME someone is acting in their corporate capacity, unless said someone proves otherwise.
HOW do you prove otherwise?
Hehehehe... the State ain't saying.
Welcome to The Game.
It's called "House Rules."
he still hasn’t actually gotten the guns back.
LEO will claim they were melted down, in error.,
he still hasn’t actually gotten the guns back.
LEO will claim they were melted down, in error.,
I like that statement. It's like the sound of one shoe dropping. LOL
Your optimism is somewhat premature.
My guess is that either they are scrambling to retrieve them from the, ahem, "collectors" who, um, "acquired" them, or else they are scrambling to get their stories straight...
I knew a custom gunsmith in CA who had his guns confiscated on trumped up charges once. He said the police brought an enclosed trailer to his shop and tossed in the beautiful custom rifles with exhibition stocks. He was out of jail the next morning and the judge ordered his guns returned. Several months later he got them, rusted, scratched, bent, and several of the very best pieces were missing and never entered on the inventory sheet.
What do you mean? Of COURSE these are the same guns we took from you! Don't they feel the same?
That makes no sense.
Consider a portion of a state constitution which says something to the effect of "the legislature is prohibited from enacting private or special laws granting o an individual, association or corporation any spacial or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatsoever."
And then putting in force all sorts of laws which provide immunities for "law enforcement." How can that be legit?
If you can find a way to show that you are harmed by the law, you might be able to file a lawsuit against the person or office that would enforce the law.
That's the rub; if the Constitution is non-constraining on government, then the harm is that there is NOTHING which I can count on in dealing with government-agents. (That is to say, there is no law [except when it's a convenience, of course], and as there is no law, there is no redress.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.