[ back ]
DEAN'S LIST - 07/06/2008
(by Dean Naddeo - OpEd Columnist - July 09, 2008)
Court gets it right on guns
Thanks to last week’s historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights, New Jersey’s famously stringent gun control laws may very well be in jeopardy. Whether this is good news or bad news clearly depends on one’s point of view.
When the court declared for the first time that individual Americans have a right under the Constitution to possess firearms for self-protection, hunting or other purposes, it set the stage for legal challenges to several states’ laws, including New Jersey’s. The pro-gun lobby will likely argue that the laws in this state are far too restrictive and in essence amount to an infringement on a person’s constitutional right to bear arms.
Factually speaking, New Jersey’s gun control laws are intentionally oppressive, clearly designed to drastically limit the number of firearms owned in the state. Specifically, the process of purchasing, possessing and carrying firearms is so highly regulated that the system itself serves to deter gun ownership.
Here’s a synopsis of some of the numerous strict requirements placed on New Jersey’s gun owners:
First, state law requires a permit to purchase a handgun and necessitates the licensing of owners. By comparison, Pennsylvania, Texas and most other states do not have these requirements. The application for a permit to purchase a firearm includes the provision of fingerprints and a waiver of all confidentiality rights regarding psychiatric treatment, health issues and criminal history. Applications will not be approved if the candidate has been convicted of a crime, is dependent on drugs or alcohol, has been treated for a mental disorder, or has a physical handicap that prevents the safe handling of a firearm. A person must also be at least 21 years of age to own a handgun or pistol – a bizarre requirement considering that you need only be 18 years old to join the military or to become a sworn police officer.
There is also a questionable catch-all reason to deny any application: A permit can be denied to any “person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare.” This vague stipulation is clearly wide open to subjective interpretation, and hence opens the door to abuse. After all, gun control advocates routinely claim that all handguns are the enemy of public good.
In addition, there are burdensome conditions regarding the possession, transport and carrying of a firearm, such as the requirement to carry a firearm unloaded and locked up when transporting it in a motor vehicle. This means that unless an owner somehow manages to secure an almighty “Carrying Permit,” he or she will need to find a way to quickly retrieve, unlock and then load the handgun before the armed carjacker lets the first shot fly.
Now, under Assembly Bill A339, New Jersey Democrats want to make it even tougher on prospective gun owners by placing a one-gun per month limit on gun purchases. Using questionable statistics, the bill’s sponsors believe that a rationing program will somehow decrease the incidence of gun crimes.
When A339 is eventually signed into law, it will only serve to hinder legitimate gun ownership, as statistics show that legal gun owners are rarely involved in gun crimes. Perhaps then, lawmakers should concentrate their efforts on the violent criminals instead – the same violent criminals that honest Americans undeniably have a constitutional right to defend themselves against.
[ back ]
