Liberals judges write new law - You can't have a gun if your WIFE has a felony conviction

[Skull Pilot]

Not that you would ever think it a good idea to read the Court Decision you are commenting on, but here it is: https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4538-13.pdf

Doesn't change my opinion.

 

[paddymurphy]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

 

[paddymurphy]

Not that you would ever think it a good idea to read the Court Decision you are commenting on, but here it is: https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4538-13.pdf

Doesn't change my opinion.

Cause you did not read it or, if you did, do not understand the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

 

[paddymurphy]

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

If someone commits a murder, they may go to jail for as little as 10 years. But lets say it is 15 years. A 22 year old thug kills someone. They do 15 years in jail. Now they are out and 37 years old. You want them to be able to buy a gun? No thank you.

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not that you would ever think it a good idea to read the Court Decision you are commenting on, but here it is: https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4538-13.pdf

Doesn't change my opinion.

Cause you did not read it or, if you did, do not understand the law.

I read it it was 6 double spaced pages.

Just because I can think for myself and disagree with a judge does not mean I did not read nor understand the ruling.

I just happen not to be a ******* sheep like you and believe that my rights have absolutely nothing to do with the acts of anyone else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

Someone else's acts are no reason to deny the rights of a person who is eligible to own a gun

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

 

[paddymurphy]

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

When that person shares you home and would, therefore, have equal access to the gun and when that person recently was accused of assault, yes, that is a good reason to deny this man the right to keep a gun in that home.

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

Not necessarily.

A biometric lock box would only allow one person to open it

Are you in favor of a person being denied ownership of a car because his wife had her license permanently revoked?

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

 

[paddymurphy]

The law provides otherwise. The Police chief who initially denied the application, the lower court judge who agreed and the three appeals court judges who affirmed the denial applied the law properly. Felons should not be permitted access to guns. End of story.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait...

Someone in the United States was denied permission from the state to exercise a constitutionally protected right because someone else committed a crime?

America is dead; all that effort by all those people to protect and defend her, wasted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Still doesn't change my opinion.

If we extend your "logic" then anyone with has children under the age of 18 should be denied gun ownership because children do not have a legal right to access guns either

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

 

[paddymurphy]

Nothing would change your opinion. Felons have given up the right to have access to guns. In some states, her living in a home where there is a gun would make her guilty of being a former felon in possession of a handgun.

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

 

[paddymurphy]

Wait...

Someone in the United States was denied permission from the state to exercise a constitutionally protected right because someone else committed a crime?

America is dead; all that effort by all those people to protect and defend her, wasted.

Your brain is dead. The man was denied his right to this permit because he was planning on taking this gun home where his convicted felon wife; who had recently gotten drunk, assaulted him and then drove off to get arrested for a DUI. His constitutional right to due process before being deprived of the right to take that gun into that home were fully honored.

 

[M14 Shooter]

New Jersey prohibits the following individuals from possessing firearms:

• Any person convicted of a “crime” of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, escape, extortion, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, bias intimidation, endangering the welfare of a child, stalking, domestic violence, or certain weapons-related offenses;1
• Any person who has ever been committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, mental institution or sanitarium unless he or she possesses a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed to practice in New Jersey or other satisfactory proof that he is no longer suffering from a mental disorder which interferes with or handicaps him in the handling of a firearm;
• Any person convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of a controlled dangerous substance unless the offense was classified as a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offense;
• Any person convicted of a disorderly persons offense of domestic violence;
• Any person whose firearm has been seized pursuant to New Jersey’s domestic violence law;
• Any person who is subject to a court order prohibiting the possession of firearms under New Jersey’s domestic violence law; or
• Any person convicted in another U.S. or foreign jurisdiction of a crime comparable to a crime listed above. 2

No permit to purchase a handgun or FPIC shall be issued to any person who:6

• Has been “convicted of any crime” (under New Jersey law, a crime is an offense “for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 6 months is authorized);”7
• Has been convicted of a “disorderly persons offense” involving an act of domestic violence,8 whether or not the person was armed with or possessing a weapon at the time of the offense;
• Is “drug dependent;”9
• Is a “habitual drunkard;”
• Is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium;
• Has ever been confined for a mental disorder, is an alcoholic, or suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him or her to handle firearms, unless the person can provide “satisfactory proof” that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with his or her handling of firearms;10
• Refuses to waive statutory or other rights of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement;11
• Knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or FPIC;
• Is under 18 years of age for a FPIC;
• Is under 21 years of age for a permit to purchase a handgun;
• Is subject to a restraining order prohibiting the person from possessing a firearm;12
• Has had his or her firearm seized by law enforcement for a domestic violence offense and whose firearm has not been returned;
• As a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime and the offense involved the unlawful use or possession of a weapon, explosive or destructive device or is listed in New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:43-7.2d; or
• Is named on the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• No permit to purchase or FPIC shall be issued where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

And so.... the denial was based on an arbitrary decision, rather than based on the actual laws of NJ, as the laws of NJ in no way specify or imply that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

If this were me, I'd make my DC hotel reservations now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Denying the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right because someone else broke the law is not a reasonable restriction, in the mind of any thinking person.

If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

Unquestionably.

 

[paddymurphy]

New Jersey prohibits the following individuals from possessing firearms:

• Any person convicted of a “crime” of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, escape, extortion, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, bias intimidation, endangering the welfare of a child, stalking, domestic violence, or certain weapons-related offenses;1
• Any person who has ever been committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, mental institution or sanitarium unless he or she possesses a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed to practice in New Jersey or other satisfactory proof that he is no longer suffering from a mental disorder which interferes with or handicaps him in the handling of a firearm;
• Any person convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of a controlled dangerous substance unless the offense was classified as a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offense;
• Any person convicted of a disorderly persons offense of domestic violence;
• Any person whose firearm has been seized pursuant to New Jersey’s domestic violence law;
• Any person who is subject to a court order prohibiting the possession of firearms under New Jersey’s domestic violence law; or
• Any person convicted in another U.S. or foreign jurisdiction of a crime comparable to a crime listed above. 2

No permit to purchase a handgun or FPIC shall be issued to any person who:6

• Has been “convicted of any crime” (under New Jersey law, a crime is an offense “for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 6 months is authorized);”7
• Has been convicted of a “disorderly persons offense” involving an act of domestic violence,8 whether or not the person was armed with or possessing a weapon at the time of the offense;
• Is “drug dependent;”9
• Is a “habitual drunkard;”
• Is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium;
• Has ever been confined for a mental disorder, is an alcoholic, or suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him or her to handle firearms, unless the person can provide “satisfactory proof” that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with his or her handling of firearms;10
• Refuses to waive statutory or other rights of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement;11
• Knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or FPIC;
• Is under 18 years of age for a FPIC;
• Is under 21 years of age for a permit to purchase a handgun;
• Is subject to a restraining order prohibiting the person from possessing a firearm;12
• Has had his or her firearm seized by law enforcement for a domestic violence offense and whose firearm has not been returned;
• As a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime and the offense involved the unlawful use or possession of a weapon, explosive or destructive device or is listed in New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:43-7.2d; or
• Is named on the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• No permit to purchase or FPIC shall be issued where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

And so.... the denial was based on an arbitrary decision, rather than based on the actual laws of NJ, as the laws of NJ in no way specify or imply that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

If this were me, I'd make my DC hotel reservations now.

• "No permit to purchase or FPIC shall be issued where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare"

You post this from the law and then claim the denial was not based on the law. Are you that ******* stupid? Or did you not bother to read what you posted or the Court Opinion explaining, in detail, how issuing a gun to a man whose wife was a felon who had recently assaulted him when she was drunk, was "not in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare"? Or do you think it is in the interests of public health, safety and welfare for a drunken, violent former felon to have access to a gun?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Being in possession of and being in the vicinity of are two different things entirely.

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

 

[paddymurphy]

You do not understand the law of constructive possession. More importantly, the law in NJ places constitutional restrictions on ones ability to possess a handgun. They applied those restrictions to the facts and properly denied him permission to have a gun.

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We're never going to agree.

You have to learn that just because something is "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right.

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals