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]