NJ Court Denies Man Pistol Permit Due to Wife’s Drug Abuse Convictions

(courtesy ammoland.com)

Is New Jersey America’s black hole when it comes to gun rights? You could make the case that Hawaii deserves that honor. Or California. But this story out of the Garden State elevates Governor Christie’s home to a new level in the annals of gun control-related Constitutional infringement. Specifically, “A state appellate court has ruled that a southern New Jersey man cannot buy guns because his wife is a convicted felon who’s been accused of domestic violence . . .

In their ruling issued this week, the two-judge panel found that the guns’ presence in the man’s home would give his wife greater access to firearms, creating an unacceptable threat to public health, safety and welfare. They said the man’s Constitutional right to own weapons was “subject to reasonable limitations.” . . .

The man had said he would keep the guns locked up and out of his wife’s control. The weapons he wanted to buy were intended to replace “antiquated” guns dating to the 1940s that he now uses for target shooting with his son.

The ruling noted that the man’s wife has two felony convictions for drug offenses and also was convicted of drunken driving. It also said police were called to the family’s home in December 2011, when the man claimed his wife had hit him while she was drinking.

Huh. Reading between the lines in the beaumontenterprise,com story, maybe the New Jersey resident wants the guns to defend himself against his violent drug-taking wife? Well they can’t have that, can they?

Some day, with a bit of luck and the hard work of groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, the Supreme Court will strike down New Jersey’s “may issue” de facto ban on citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Meanwhile, the “reasonable restrictions” clause in the Heller decision continues to turn the landmark case into a Pyrrhic victory, as we predicted.  [h/t DrVino]

comments

  1. avatar General Zod says:

    Ah, guilt by association. The very backbone of what our legal system is not supposed to be.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Guilt by association is one of the sacraments of the progressive religion.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        +1 ration, comrade.

  2. avatar Tom says:

    Get out of NJ. I did a long time ago due to military orders. Come south to a state that still knows how to honor, respect and obey the Constitution.

    1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

      I’m sure this will get a response or two but head on down the SC…we know how to support the second amendment

    2. avatar Steve s says:

      Yep. I left NJ, specifically Lumberton 8 years ago. Returned to my home state of Illinois. Little did I know we only had fanny pack carry until the Illinois ban on concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional. If Christie was serious consideration for Republican nomination, he better start acting now. Otherwise just count him as a RINO.

      1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

        Christie’s dead in the water bud, I hope he has the sense to stay out of the race. He has flopped around so much…there’s an analogy involving a snowball…and California….or hell…I mix them up.

    3. avatar Number 6 says:

      Jump over to PA and get the wife some addiction counseling.

  3. avatar Mark N. says:

    OK, so the court is saying that a “reasonable restriction” is a complete ban on owning firearms in the home because of the presence of someone else…If you give them an inch, they will take a mile; I cannot see how this meets the strict scrutiny mandate of Heller. (Well, I guess you could say that Heller dos not mandate strict scrutiny, but is does say that a total ban fails to satisfy any level of scrutiny.) The SCOTUS’ refusal to grant cert in any of the cases coming from restrictive states (CA, NY, NJ, Md) has lead to an erosion of Heller, as those courts are back to rational basis scrutiny that is labeled as “intermediate” scrutiny. the curt MUST act soon, or the rights in those states will soon be gone forever.

    1. avatar Greg says:

      As I read this the guy has guns in the house, he wants a new one that isn’t worn out from the 1940’s. So how is it reasonable to denie the buying of a gun if some are already owned? I know logic is another thing banned in NJ.

  4. avatar Grindstone says:

    So, wait. He already has guns? Are they going to confiscate those now or what?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Probably…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        And just how did they know he had guns?

        Oh. Yeah.

        He told N.J. he had them.

        I see how that worked out for him…

  5. avatar Virginia Gunner says:

    What about people with family members that are considered “mentally incompetent” under Brady, like those with Down’s syndrome, or victims of Alzheimer’s, or veterans suffering from head trauma or PTSD? Is merely sharing a house with loved ones like that going to cost others in that state their Constitutional rights also?

    Maryland’s rationale is a slippery slope indeed. This seems like it is ripe for a legal challenge at a higher level.

    1. avatar Virginia Gunner says:

      My mistake, this was NJ. I still had Maryland on the brain from the other article.

  6. avatar mk10108 says:

    How to correct this. Simple divorce your wife, have her go on welfare and the state sues the former husband to payments they made. Or sell your home split proceeds, she uses her half for drug, goes on welfare, repeat the above.

    Simple solution…save a citizen while boot choking a law abider.

    1. avatar Virginia Gunner says:

      A better solution for this guy would be to move to my side of the Potomac.

      1. avatar Gatha58 says:

        Best solution is to get rid of his wife. Divorce her as she is obviously a loser. He does not need her. She is holding him back.

  7. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Holy crap! Better take his car away.
    Cause she had a DUII…

      1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

        BAN CARS!

  8. avatar Another Robert says:

    Sooo–don’t want your wife to be able to defend herself in NJ? Beat her up and get yourself a DV arrest. Makes sense, in an unintended-consequence kind of way…

  9. avatar sagebrushracer says:

    the NERVE of some people, to ask for a pistol for self defense… He would be much better just to call the police, they will be sure to protect him in time…….

  10. avatar Richard in WA says:

    Sounds like a clear example of Constructive Possession to me. I actually agree with the decision. If they were legally separated and living in different residences I would disagree with this decision.

    At least in my state of residence, everything a husband owns his spouse owns too. This would be a case where a technicality allowed a multiple-convicted felon access to firearms. Maybe she should start the legal process to get her rights restored, for the benefit of the entire family?

    Now… since he already HAS firearms in the house it won’t make a lick of difference, I bet he loses his collection (or is compelled by the state to sell them) now that it has come to light.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Do you have minor children living with you? If so, then to apply that logic means that you have a minor in constructive possession of a firearm – taken to an absurd conclusion we could also say they are constructively driving without a license if you own a car. This is the sort of madness that results when the State intervenes in your personal life and rations out your rights and privileges.

      1. avatar Richard in WA says:

        Minors possessing firearms (actively and constructively) is spelled out as permissible with parental permission in my state. Community Property also clearly defined; a husband’s property is his wife’s property. Your leap of logic from an adult owning property to a minor child “constructively driving a car” is laughable.

        I’ve read on this very blog about “what you should do with your guns if a convicted-felon friend comes over” and people jumped up everyone else’s rectum about CP. Now that there’s a clear-cut case of it happening, everyone is freaking out about it being an abuse of liberty? Is anyone here actually genuine when they say that they don’t want convicted felons to have access to firearms?

        There’s probably a process she can go through for restoration of rights, if she cares enough. I don’t think it’s likely to happen given repeated issues with substance abuse.

  11. avatar Sian says:

    Unlike New Jersey, Hawaii doesn’t scoop up innocent out-of-staters who don’t know any better and charge them with multiple felonies. Mostly because island.

    1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

      That’s because they have already crushed the second amendment on the islands and good freaking luck bringing one on vacation.

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Sorry I’ve been down the matrimony trail a few times-had one certified spouse. Wifey sounds certified. I don’t agree with this but “understand” the mindset. Move…

  13. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Wife hits husband? He should have divorced her and left. Problem solved.

  14. avatar JohnF says:

    “…the man’s wife has two felony convictions for drug offenses and also was convicted of drunken driving. It also said police were called to the family’s home in December 2011, when the man claimed his wife had hit him while she was drinking.”

    What’s da problem? Dat’s a “normal, healthy marriage” in Jersey!

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I knew a guy whose drunken wife attacked him with a knife. He got cut up pretty good, but he punched her in the face to stop the attack. This was in NJ. The police came and saw her unconscious with the knife still in her hand, he is cut up and bleeding and he got arrested & convicted for hitting her. Served over 2 years for it. Why, because he was the male and should never have hit the female under any circumstances. Apparently, he was supposed to let her gut him out like a trout. I left NJ many years ago, but sadly still work there. It’s is as messed up as California, just in a different way.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    NJ will use any available excuse to deny 2A rights, no matter how bogus. End of discussion.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email