Posted on 05/24/2016 10:16:04 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
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.
It’s the latest example of New Jersey’s gun-control laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.
In New Jersey, residents must apply to their local police departments to obtain permits to buy, own or carry firearms and must meet a list of criteria before they can be approved. Few residents are granted carry permits.
This month, the appellate division denied a Middlesex County man’s application for a gun permit just because of his terrible driving record.
NJ man denied gun permit due to ‘atrocious’ driving record
Earlier this month, a Superior Court judge in Monmouth County denied a soldier’s request for a carry permit because he couldn’t prove “justifiable need” even though he worked on a military facility that had faced terrorist threats.
Even soldier working under terrorist threats can’t get gun carry permit in NJ
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.”
The appellate decision faulted Vinogradsky for his “unwillingness to familiarize himself with our gun control laws.”
Officers testified she had a splint on her finger and said she was “a little scared” at the police station. In the police report of the incident the wife told police her husband tried to pull her engagement ring off her finger which caused bruising and strained the finger.
NJ law certainly does not supersede the constitution but I believe there is a valid state interest here. The Boston colony and a number of the original 13 had a laundry list of crimes that could result in temporary disarmament. Domestic abuse seems as good a situation as any for keeping guns out of the picture.
This is really only one of two valid reasons for having a fedogv.
To prevent states depriving citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The second is national military protection.
There is a third I forgot.
To settle disputes between the states.
“These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.” — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
See the 2nd Amendment in the top half of the middle column of that page.
If I understand correctly, since the charges against the man were dropped, by refusing to return the man’s guns New Jersey is violating Section 1 of 14A with respect to 2A imo.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The man probably doesn’t know his 14th Amendment protections which, as with other relatively recent victims of politically correct state overreach, doesn’t help his situation if that is the case.
Just think, there were a smattering of FReepers that thought he was a somewhat viable presidential candidate.
Didn’t know that. Wonder if some of the positions he has taken on issues is because it’s New Jersey and not exactly known as a conservative state.
All Laws and Regulations which are antithetical to the Supreme Law of the Land, are null and void.
You have the DUTY to disobey unjust (evil) laws that treat us like “subjects” and take away our Natural Rights from God which is impossible. (Natural Rights are unalienable—can’t even give them away if you want.
All judges who forsake their duty to promote Freedom/Natural Rights according to our Constitution, need to be put in prison and stripped of their office.
The court is wrong.
True enough -- But this is an interesting case in that the supremacy clause only extends to laws pursuant to the constitution, and today it's commonly held that any federal law trumps a state law because of that, but this is an entirely different beast where the state law contradicts the federal constitution. It might pave the way for some interesting legal fights, especially those that are targeting federal overreach.
> These stupid judges are idiots and making it up as they go along.
That's what's been happening for years now, even on the USSC. I think the biggest culprit is how 'precedence' is enshrined, to the point that positions that are directly contrary to the constitution are held as valid. (And then there's always the judges who 'forget' about precedent that doesn't support their positions.)
Whenever the NWO progressives think they can get away with it to fit their agenda
Sounds like a great case to take to court during normal times. But not in O’s America with his Jerry rigged Supreme Court setup to rule in the leftists’s favor every time now since they got rid of Scalia...
So do state laws over ride immigaytion law?
Two points:
1) He was not convicted, the state could temporarily take his weapons, but once the charges were dropped, they should have been returned, minus items that violate state law (stupid, anti 2A law, but a separate issue)
2) Valid state interests are limited. If the state wants to permanently prohibit a person from possessing weapons, they should have to show in a legal proceeding that a person, through word or deed poses a risk others.
In this case, they took the weapons, and the individual is having to argue why he should get them back, not the state arguing why they should not have to return them. To my mind, the presumption is backwards.
Like never!
I wasn’t aware of disarmament in the colonies. What were the crimes? Were they from the British authorities? And well. It’s nice to have an art theorist on board.
I have a gut feeling about you, that you will end up banned as a sleeper troll.
How is that relevant in any way, whatsoever?
How does one have a "valid state interest" that abrogates the Bill of Rights?
The federal attorney general should have stepped in long before this and tell the state to knock it off or they’ll be smoked.
Picking and choosing what to enforce and what to not enforce violated the oath of office which is to “faithfully execute the law”. The word faithfully means to do it whether you personally or politically agree with the content or intent of the law of not.
Reading through the replies here, I’m a bit surprised at how many of us don’t yet realize that we are a nation of men, not laws (and have been for many years now)...
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.