14 votes

US Court of Appeals Affirms NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun, Full-hearing Next

The United States Court of Appeals for the third circuit will be holding a full-hearing on an important case challenging gun laws in new jersey; specifically the court will hear a case challenging the NJ gun law that requires Americans provide “justifiable-need” to government to own a handgun.

A 3-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the third circuit affirmed a prior court decision ruling by a 2-1 vote in favor of the NJ gun law requiring residents give justifiable-need to own a gun, which was then appealed, and thereafter the full-hearing, could head to the supreme court.

Thanks to coverage by Maryclaire Dale at the Associated Press, the dissenting judge’s brave-words can be seen; Judge Thomas M. Hardiman argued that:

“the Second Amendment trumped state law, because the need for self-defense exists within and outside the home.”

Thanks to Salvador Rizzo at NJ.com, the state of mind and bias of the 2 affirming judges can be further exposed and summarized in their own words. Gun owners are required to have an:

“urgent-need for self-protection” to own a gun.

The Right to self-defense is self-evident...

CONTINUED...

FULL ARTICLE: US Court of Appeals Affirms NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun, Full-hearing Next

http://livingnotsurviving.com/2013/08/03/us-court-of-appeals...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yea,

Yea, it's to kill people like you judges a anyone some else who wants to take my guns. Is that a good enought reason?

“urgent-need for self-protection”

That's what I'd write.

Its A Freaking God Given Right..No Government Interference!!

God gave 'THE PEOPLE' the right to protect themselves, their families and their fellow countrymen from government tyranny, including the New Jersey Federal Court System and that fat corn fed hog of a governor, Chris Christe...

IF ...

If this goes the way I hope Liberty will smile upon The Garden State ~ If it goes the way I think Tyranny will rein supreme ~ I will go with this quote ... Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Since when do you need

Since when do you need permission from government employees to carry a gun?
What if I'm carrying my gun to the shooting range?

The specific law in question

The specific law in question is a 1924 NJ law, but it has come up because their government is attempting to stretch definitions and words to apply to guns, so it is being challenged.

Right now, the US court of appeals for the third circuit has affirmed another lower court's decision in favor of the gun law, but only with a 2-1 vote in a partial-panel hearing, so the case will now move forward to full-panel hearing, and then, if appealed, supreme court.

Living Not Surviving


-IN PURSUIT OF LIBERTY-

Incorrect title

This law Requires you to have a "justifiable need" to CARRY a handgun NOT OWN. Multiple states have this and is nothing new. The supreme court wouldn't take a case similar to this from New York.

Also, as of now, 44 states do

Also, as of now, 44 states do not require any justifiable need, and as far as I've seen and read, the only "justifiable-need" states are NJ, NY, IL (foid can be considered this).

Living Not Surviving


-IN PURSUIT OF LIBERTY-

The law may be so, but the

The law may be so, but the dissenting judge's opinions will set precedent for owning guns, which is why there is uproar over this case. Their wording was embarrassing and unprofessional, which is also why the 3rd judge chose to "reaffirm the 2nd amendment" in response.

Living Not Surviving


-IN PURSUIT OF LIBERTY-

How could a court with

multiple judges reach such a ridiculous opinion? Demonstrate urgent need for self-protection? Astonishing.

I think it's the

I think it's the embarrassment and pressure that will follow this partial-panel decision that will force the full-panel court hearing to overturn the affirmation and law.

Living Not Surviving


-IN PURSUIT OF LIBERTY-

Message for the so-called Judges

You have the right to disagree with the Constitution. You do not have the right to willfully ignore it.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/99855...

It is not the judges' duty to create law. The 2nd Amendment is clear. If you do not LIKE it, you are welcome to your opinion. Call an Article V Convention and amend the Constitution.

Judge Thomas M. Hardiman

Judge Thomas M. Hardiman argued:

“the Second Amendment trumped state law, because the need for self-defense exists within and outside the home.”

I think Judge Hardiman must have been thinking the same thing when he heard the opinion of the other 2 judges.

Living Not Surviving


-IN PURSUIT OF LIBERTY-

Do You Realize That Without Bush's Supreme Court Appointees

The 2nd Amendement would have been ruled to be a military right and not an individual right, and this ridiculous court ruling would now be well on the way to being upheld?

If Ford and Bush Sr. hadn't nominated the liberal justices Stevens ans Souter, we'd be a lot better off.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Bush's Supreme Court appointee John Roberts

cast the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-cour...

If Ron Paul had been elected President and his appointees were sitting on the Supreme Court, we'd be a lot better off.