Second Amendment Foundation Sues NJ Gov. Phil Murphy For Depravation of Gun Rights

SAF sues Gov Phil Murphy NICS

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

In a move directly linked to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Gov. Philip D. Murphy and State Police Supt. Patrick J. Callahan, asserting violation of civil rights under color of law by shutting down firearms dealerships in the Garden State, thus preventing citizens from exercising their rights under the Second and Fourteenth amendments.

Murphy and Callahan are being sued in their official capacities. The case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the State of New Jersey is known as Kashinsky v. Murphy.

Joining SAF in this action is the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, on behalf of Robert Kashinsky and Legend Firearms, a gun shop in the state. They are represented by noted civil rights attorney David Jensen.

Second Amendment Foundation

Kashinsky sought to purchase a firearm for personal protection during the current crisis, but Murphy issued Executive Order 107 on March 21, which ordered all non-essential retail businesses closed to the public. The order does not include licensed firearms dealers on its list of “essential” businesses that may continue operating during the crisis.

“In order for New Jersey residents to purchase firearms,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they must go through a licensed firearms retailer and pass a background check. However, Murphy’s order was subsequently followed by a notice posted on the State Police website that the agency is no longer conducting background checks.

“Gov. Murphy cannot simply suspend the Second Amendment, and neither can Supt. Callahan,” he continued. “Yet, under this emergency order, that’s exactly what they’re doing. The Constitution, and federal law, don’t allow that. New Jersey may have been the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, but they’re the last state to recognize it.”

The lawsuit seeks an injunction restraining the defendants and everyone acting on their behalf from enforcing Executive Order 107 “to the extent it operates to flatly prohibit the purchase and sale of firearms and ammunition.”

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

comments

  1. avatar Dennis says:

    Go get em, and make it hurt! Remember all this sh*t in November, people!

    1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

      Eric Swalwell 2020

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I thought someone was holding your beer?

  2. avatar Paul says:

    Depravation?! Yes, I’ll agree gungrabbers are depraved. But, I think you meant “deprivation” up there.

    No, I’m not a spelling or grammar Nazi, but that mistake tickles my funny bone. ;^)

    1. avatar Mr Lucky says:

      Depravation – Detraction; depreciation. The act of depraving, or making anything bad; the act of corrupting. The state of being depraved or degenerated; degeneracy; depravity. Change for the worse; deterioration; morbid perversion.

      Certainly does describe gungrabbers.

      1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Except those fucks couldn’t be any more depraved.

      2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        Depraved may be describing gun grabbers but the fact is they are DEPRIVING gun owners of their rights. Misuse of words is a leftist tactic, we on the right don’t need to follow their example!

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      That’s what happens when you depend on spell-check. They think it’s also grammar-check. Wee sea it all the thyme.

      1. avatar EndDangerEd says:

        It’s why they named it “spellwrecker”…. no?

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “Wee sea it all the thyme.”

        And Victoria Illinois wins the award for best TTaG comment of the day!

  3. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Good, 2-A supporters need to make a example out of these people to get our point across to the other political hacks…

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Which brings up a good point for any new gun owner. Maybe you cannot make it to the shooting range, but support your gun rights by joining any of great gun rights national orgs like Firearms Policy Coalition, Guns of America AND your state’s gun rights orgs. Contiued support is for yours and your childs 2A future. Its not one-way; we all help each other.

  4. avatar enuf says:

    Good, yet another reason why I support the SAF and GOA by sending them all the money I used to send to the NRA.

    While protecting gun shops from the hoploophobic morons in power is likely to need court action, the easiest correction could come from Trump with a single phone call or face to face order to the head of Homeland Security. That is where companies and types of businesses supporting the DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE are named or described. Under that classification alone, Trump could instantly protect gun shops using Federal law to override local, county and state orders.

    And that is not the only classification under the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce listings where gun shops could be protected, just the most logical to my reading on it.

    If Trump, who i snot a gun person or even remotely pro-gun, knew what he was doing he’d be effectively telling these governors and other hoplophes down the ladder to go stuff it.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Wonder if there is really any “there” there? To sue, one must quantify the damage, right? And given the time a law suit takes, the “emergency” might be over, making the denial of rights moot. (kinda like the stance of NYC regarding their law prohibiting transport of guns out of the city)

    Any lawyers wanna evaluate the standing and potential moot point?

    1. avatar The Crimson Dammit Jim I'm Not A Lawyer, I'm a Pirate says:

      Not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and did not stay at a holiday inn express, but I believe I can address mootness in this case.

      With the NY transport case mootness is an issue because once NYC changed the law to accommodate the plaintiff on the issue that should in theory solve the problem. They theoretically shouldn’t just change it back if the case is dismissed as moot. Although we know that is a real possibility, it isn’t a standard practice in legislation. The issue there is our side’s contention that they just changed it to get the case dismissed and intend to change it upon dismissal. Plus our side does not feel the changes in law are sufficient to truly address the core issues of the case.

      With the NJ situation, the conditions infringing on the plaintiffs rights continue to exist and merely await the next emergency to trigger again. Therefore the NJ situation would not be rendered moot merely by the ending of the current emergency.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “With the NJ situation, the conditions infringing on the plaintiffs rights continue to exist and merely await the next emergency to trigger again. ”

        So, your thinking that the ongoing authority of a governor to declare an emergency, and to prioritize activities is a never-ending threat to civil rights regarding gun purchases, and that legislation prohibiting the governor from closing gun sales means the issue can never become moot?

        I can see how a court might view things the same way.

        Thanx

  6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Seems to me like this is a good time to push constitutional carry, and a repeal of the GCA 68.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And NFA 1934.

  7. avatar California Richard says:

    How’s all this going over in Virginia? Are the pro-Coonman/KKK people eating crow yet?

  8. avatar American Patriot says:

    It well all be over by the time anything is done. More then likely nothing will come of it because anyone knows liberals are never held accountable…..Especially elected ones!!!

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      The question is, Why isn’t the federal government stopping these infringements on the people? That is one of the primary duties of the federal government — to support and uphold the Constitution, with includes preventing state and local governments from violating our rights. The USAG/DOJ should be the one who IMMEDIATELY files legal action against the state, not individuals or businesses.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Upholding the constitution is subject to wide interpretation. If it is once legal to stretch the meaning, or implication of a single sentence of the constitution, every sentence is open to interpretation. Thus I may believe that thousands of exceptions to the constitution is upholding the overall essence, while improving the constitution through pursuit of exceptions and inventive reasoning to support my belief.

      2. avatar Michael says:

        Stop screaming for smaller government and less intervention and maybe the Federal government might stand a chance. As it is, with all of these less government folks, we the people cannot even have a congressional subpoena honored, much less impeach the most corrupt person ever in the oval.
        now you want the Federal government to step in?

  9. avatar Black Jack Geary says:

    It’s ALL about CONTROL:

    “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.” – Majority Whip James Clyburn

    They are gambling with your future to gain more power.
    Do NOT forget this in November.

    https://www.weaselzippers.us/445912-dem-house-whip-rep-clyburn-admits-economic-package-is-an-opportunity-to-restructure-things-to-fit-our-vision/

    https://www.weaselzippers.us/445923-senior-gop-source-pelosi-and-schumer-making-non-coronavirus-related-demands-while-holding-up-relief-bill/

  10. avatar Joe Rod says:

    Make Phil Murphy a one term Governor

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really? Let’s see, what free stuff are you promising?

  11. avatar barnbwt says:

    Let me guess; the courts will be closed for the duration & won’t hear new cases?

  12. avatar David White says:

    Delaware is trying to do the same thing so we need this same type of lawsuit brought here.

  13. avatar Chiefton says:

    If they are allowed to suspend this, what would stop them from suspending an election that they appear to be losing or expecting to lose because of this or some created emergency? How about we suspend your right to a trial or to life, liberty, and happiness. You getting the drift yet. 2a protects all the rest and the Dems know it very well.

  14. avatar Justin (Slavery is just a tax) Roberts says:

    Since compelling government interest seems to override the BOR, could we have the top 100 democrats executed as a temporary relief measure?

  15. avatar FR says:

    Remember anti gun liberals. You went to get a firearm and you came face to face with your own laws. Remember. The laws you pass will directly effect you in a crisis. In Cali, there’s a 10 day waiting period. Those liberals thought that they would pay for the firearm and walk out with the ammo and gun on the same day. Background check for the firearm, wait 10 days to get it. And background check for the ammo in Cali. I say again. The laws you pass will directly affect you in a crisis.

  16. It’s time to take back OUR Government !!!

  17. avatar The Huscarl says:

    I don’t see how this is a special infringement of rights. There is a genuine crisis in which any place of business can become a vector for infection. This order, to my knowledge, does not modify the laws regarding possession or carrying if arms. It just prohibits conducting business and treats gun store just like any other business under the sun. You guys are actually arguing for putting gun stores in a special and superior class of business relative to others. I don’t see why they should be treated specially.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “You guys are actually arguing for putting gun stores in a special and superior class of business relative to others.”

      You mean like that special category of businesses determined to be “essential”. Ya’ think gun owners and 2A defenders might be miffed at not being included as an “essential” service/business. Ya’ think gun owners want to put gun stores in that “essential” special category?

      Equal application of the law. If any business is “essential”, all businesses are “essential”. If gun businesses are not “essential”, no business is “essential”.

      So yes, gun owners (POTG, that is) rebel at the idea of government picking winners and losers. Truth is, closing gun stores is not about slowing corona virus, but about disrupting the gun business, and preventing more people from depending upon themselves, rather than government, for their own protection and safety. More independence, less government dependence; terrifies government overlords.

      1. avatar The Huscarl says:

        The idea of all businesses being equal is patently absurd. Guns do make the world safer. However, they’re not necessary to make the world habitable. Power plants are owned by businesses, and so are water utilities. Plumbers are businesses as well. If those were shut down, civilized life would essentially end.

        A TEMPORARY shut down if gun shops does not cause any inherent danger the way shutting down those businesses would. That is, so long as it remains TEMPORARY.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The idea of all businesses being equal is patently absurd.”

          Just as is the notion that gun owners want to put themselves in a category superior to others.

          But think it thru….ordinary people work at both “essential” and “non-essential” businesses. Why is the financial well being of one category of employee more superior to another. Both have financial obligations, both require food and shelter. Both consider having a paycheck “essential”.

          BTW, in a “panic”, personal safety is essential. There is no guarantee roving gangs of looters will not appear just because the breakdown is caused by a virus affecting the entire nation. Protecting one’s life is rather “essential”, wouldn’t you say?

        2. avatar The Huscarl says:

          @ Sam I Am

          It’s not about the financial well-being of certain businesses. It’s about people continuing to be able to obtain the essentials of life. Food, water, medicine, etc. The businesses that sell essentials should remain open and continue to distribute their goods. Businesses that don’t sell essentials should not.

          Guns are a good idea for security. The situation has NOT degraded to such a degree where they’re totally essential. Most people are going to get through this just fine regardless of whether they own a gun or not. Please cite any cases of roving mobs of looters where the sole cause was COVID-19 panic. For that matter, having a gun is not a guarantee of success in protecting one’s self, nor is lack of a gun a guarantee of death. It increases your ability to defend yourself when properly utilized. That’s it.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Do you find it a bit strange that the founders ensured our right to arms was not to be trifled with by government, yet said nothing about the right of “essential” business to operate?

          Closing gun stores is, simply, not a health matter. Especially when the large majority of governors closing gun stores are Dimwitocrats. No, it is about control. If I must be able to buy food, and have electricity, then I must be able to exercise my enumerated right to self-protection.

          Your reasoning boils down to, “People NEED food, but no one NEEDS a gun; it’s OK if you have one, but not essential. When constitutionally protected civil rights are not essential, things have gone off the rails.

          BTW a person does not have a pressing NEED for a gun when law breaks down entirely. A person NEEDS a gun before the fall. It does not matter if a person misjudges the NEED, and acquires a gun that remains unused in defense. It really matters if a person misjudges the NEED, and is left without adequate defense at a critical moment.

          PSS: you still avoid the issue here…the accusation that gun owners want to put themselves in a superior category to others.

        4. avatar sparkyinWI says:

          Interesting the gun stores in NJ are not essential. However liquor stores and the weed dispensaries are essential and can remain open. So there really is no good excuse to close the gun stores, even IL recognized that.

          Gun stores can follow the same social distance and buying, etc. rules that liquor stores and weed places can. I would argue that the “State” has no business closing any places period. They can say you need to follow a set of social distancing rules, etc. and if you can do that successfully you can remain open. No different than say a grocery store. The ones here have laid out taped areas, boundaries, etc. and their employees gently remind folks who do not pay attention to those.

        5. avatar Ed says:

          The problem with “temporary” ban on purchases is that the anti-gun left-wing progressive movement will only use this as a stepping stone. guv’nah murphy can say that firearm/ammunition stores are non-essential BUT what makes liquor stores essential? I guess the guv’nah’s “taste”, to use his word, is it’s ok to get drunk and make sure you have your booz but not ok to be able to defend yourself or your loved ones. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “BUT what makes liquor stores essential?”

          Actually read something about that, yesterday. The article was point out something most people probably wouldn’t think of, at any point: the after effects of removing supply from alcoholics, and those heavily dependent on a toddy to calm the nerves. The question was whether closing liquor stores would drive crime and domestic violence that otherwise might not happen? The discussion noted that we have not seen a spike reported, but the stored inventory available may not have been seriously depleted, yet. If the current panic lasts another month or two….

          Not taking any sides here, but it is an interesting question. Keeping liquor stores open just might be a useful preventative.

    2. avatar Warlocc says:

      The problem isn’t actually shutting down the businesses. The problem is shutting down the businesses after making laws saying the businesses are they only way for new owners to exercise the 2A.

  18. avatar Hydguy says:

    Nothing will be done.

  19. avatar Ronald West says:

    Get them good 2 A. Foundation bore them a new butt hole

  20. avatar Ron B says:

    As I said in another post, if you don’t have a firearm, training, and ammunition on hand, you are an IDIOT! But I hope they win, and bankrupt these morally corrupt politicians!

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