Is 1 gun a month legal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

harbinger_j

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
172
Location
New Jersey
I guess it is going to depend on the constitution of the state?
But also could such a law be constitutional in the USA?


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20090807_Corzine_signs_law_limiting_handgun_purchases.html

Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases

By Jonathan Tamari

Inquirer Trenton Bureau
TRENTON - New Jersey will become the fourth state in the nation to limit handgun purchases to one every month. Gov. Corzine signed the controversial measure into law yesterday.

Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer joined Corzine and called on Pennsylvania to become No. 5. The law, which is aimed at slowing gun trafficking, would make life safer in New Jersey and neighboring states by fighting trafficking, he said.

"I just hope Pennsylvanians would make it safer for us by passing this bill," Palmer said at a ceremony outside Trenton City Hall.

The law aims to impede "straw purchasers" - people who have clean records and buy guns legally, then pass them to criminals. The law will take effect in early January but could see some changes before then. A task force is reviewing its potential impact and will make recommendations this fall.

Corzine and gun-control advocates argue that roughly a quarter of what they call "crime guns" recovered in New Jersey come from within the state. It's not clear how many of those came from the type of multiple purchases that Corzine wants to stop. When pressed, the governor said there is anecdotal evidence that people with clean records are making large purchases to help criminals.

"Nothing is more dangerous than to have the proliferation, the vast proliferation, of guns in the hands of individuals who want to perpetrate violence in our communities," Corzine said.

The law would limit handgun purchases to one every 30 days, to a maximum of 13 a year, because of timing quirks. Rifles and other long guns would not be affected.

Exceptions have been carved out for collectors, and a task force has begun meeting to determine if amendments are needed to ensure that people who may need more than one handgun each month - such as competitive shooters - are not restricted.

Critics say the law would impinge on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in New Jersey, which already has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

"Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers," Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, wrote in an e-mail.

Efforts to enact a similar law in Pennsylvania have failed, and Philadelphia saw its one-handgun-a-month ordinance struck down in court.

Gov. Rendell "couldn't agree more with Gov. Corzine, and he's glad New Jersey was able to sign that important legislation into law," spokesman Ken Snyder said yesterday. Prospects in Pennsylvania for the same legislation to pass are "more difficult," he said.

The nine-person review panel includes two Gloucester County Democrats: Assemblyman John Burzichelli, who voted against the bill, and Sen. Fred Madden, who supported it only after receiving assurances that the task force would study its impact. Burlington County prosecutor Robert Bernardi is also on the study team.

California, Maryland, and Virginia have similar laws.
 
...since straw purchases are a federal matter...already have heavy penalties in place...the ONLY reason a state would do this is to be controlling and restrictive...I believe it is unconstitutional for either to restrict us to only one purchase of ANY product per month...meddlin' in our business...again....
 
This is already been going in California for quite some time. Long gun can be purchased by the bushel, but handguns are a once a month event.
 
So... let me get this straight. They want to enact a law, that will make a criminal act illegal. I do not think the criminals are going to like this, and they probably will not follow the law. Just a hunch.
 
Calling on PA to become No.5? Might as well call on the mountain to step out of the road!

NJ can go pound sand.

-Sam
 
Unfortunately what ever the SCTOUS says is Constitutional is Constitutional in spite of its clear meaning. The question SCOTUS will address - Is this an unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment? - and I bet they will say it is not unconstitutional with Kennedy siding with the liberal justices. In the end it is all up to Kennedy as the are 4 good Justices and 4 liberal justices and Kennedy a mushy midle of the road type.
 
The law in California is one handgun a month.

I'm WAY behind my quota, but so far the police haven't said anything. :)
 
It's kind of like, how many paid hookups make a woman a hooker! I guess it's not profitable for an individual to make 12-13 straw sales a year. But I guess it doesn't have to make any sense.
 
jmortimer said:
...what ever the SCTOUS says is Constitutional is Constitutional in spite of its clear meaning....
[1] I guess the meaning isn't always as clear as you think it is, since there seems to be some disagreement about it from time to time.

[2] In any case, under Article III of the Constitution:
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
 
From a practical point of view, can anyone actually afford to buy 13 $500ish handguns a year?

Not siding with this legislation, but I really don't think it is that restrictive.

I do believe it is COnstitutional on the basis that the government can regulate commerce, at least interstate commerce.

Oh god, don't get me started on how the feds and Congress have intentionally misconstrued interstate commerce to stick their noses in anything they want....Some judge has to see the light someday.
 
From a practical point of view, can anyone actually afford to buy 13 $500ish handguns a year?
Sure. That's only $6,500. A lot of members here own ONE rifle worth more than that. Or ONE shotgun worth THREE TIMES that. And what if you wanted to collect a bunch of $200, police trade-in S&W 64s like J&G and others had for sale last year? That's only $2,600! I think most of us could come up with that over the course of a year if it was important to us.

But what difference does that make? What about wanting a pair of Hi-Points to stash near the front and back door of your house? Gotta wait 30 days to buy that second one? Why is that o.k. with you? Why should it be o.k. with ME?

Not siding with this legislation, but I really don't think it is that restrictive.
How restrictive would be acceptable? Maybe someday we can vote on how tight the leashes aught to be?

-Sam
 
Until McDonald goes through AND 2A is Incorporated AND the level is no less than Heightened Intermediate Scrutiny then yes any laws passed in this vein are inherently constitutional.

Don't like the way the system works, tough , it's the only game in town, work with advocacy and lobbying groups, pay to fund organizations like NRA etc to work to change it.
 
unconstitutional.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIFE IS SHORT.....
 
I'm stationed in MD right now and this is how a stupid 1 gun a month law can affect a law abiding citizen. My daughter wants to start shooting SASS matches... I think it is a great way for us to spend time together. MD has the 1 a month law. Since I don't have any SAA type revolvers it requires me to take four months to buy the equipment we need to shoot SASS. It is stupid and limits my rights. But hey, what do I know, I'm only sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.
 
It's not an issue of people buying that many guns a year, really (although I still disagree with the principle even if that was the only issue).

It's, like someone above said, the guy who wants to buy a few guns to stash around the house and now has to space them out. It's the guy who turns 21 and now wants to buy a 9mm, a .357, a .44, a .45, and a .22, plus a few more for his wife to shoot, and now has to wait the better part of a year to complete his purchases, even though he has the money now.

Either way the principle is a problem. It may cut down on certain people, if there are a few people somewhere that make alot of money that way, but it won't cut down on straw purchases. There is always someone who will commit that kind of crime for you, you just can't go to the one guy in town who use to provide for everyone.
 
http://www.anjrpc.org/ doesn't think so and just filed suit in NJ...

ANJRPC SUES TO THROW OUT CORZINE'S ONE GUN A MONTH LAW!


Federal Lawsuit Comes in Direct Response to Lawmakers' Broken Promise to Create a Meaningful Exemption for Honest Collectors and Competitors


Following is the Text of an ANJRPC Press Release
issued on January 17, 2010



The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to invalidate New Jersey's one gun a month law, in direct response to lawmakers' broken promise to create a meaningful exemption for gun collectors and competitors in the handgun rationing law.

According to ANJRPC President Scott Bach, "Criminals laugh at Corzine's new law, which they can easily thwart, and which fails to punish criminal behavior. It's a thinly disguised attempt to ration the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."

"Lawmakers promised that Corzine's Firearms Task Force would deliver a meaningful exemption for honest gun collectors and competitors, who were not the target of the law. Instead, they rammed through a largely useless and offensive scheme requiring registered gun owners to beg further permission and show why it is not 'feasible or practical' to ration their Constitutional rights every time they wish to make an exempt purchase – a nearly impossible standard to meet," said Bach. "Lawmakers blatantly broke their promise and turned the Task Force into a Task Farce when it came to protecting the Constitutional rights of honest citizens. Their actions forced us to sue, and have now jeopardized the very existence of their feel-good law."

The lawsuit is based on a federal statute that pre-empts state and local laws regulating the sale of certain firearms. The new law runs directly afoul of that statute because of the way New Jersey’s ultra-strict laws sweepingly define firearms. The suit also asserts claims based on the failure of the State Police to implement procedures under the new law, as well as the unlawful rationing of handgun permits by individual municipalities. A copy of the complaint is available at http://www.anjrpc.org/NJ_OGM_Complaint.pdf

New Jersey’s one gun a month law was passed by the legislature in June by a single vote, despite overwhelming evidence that it could be easily circumvented by criminals, failed to address real sources of trafficking, and targeted only law-abiding citizens. Gun rationing laws passed in other states have either been shown ineffective or repealed.

Ironically, the New Jersey law ignores known sources of New Jersey gun trafficking, like the Fedex gun theft ring that stole hundreds of handguns from legal shipments in 2008 and distributed them illegally on the streets of Jersey City and Newark. The law only regulates conduct by law-abiding citizens who have been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and certified by the State as acceptable to own firearms.
 
Lawmakers promised that Corzine's Firearms Task Force would deliver a meaningful exemption for honest gun collectors and competitors, who were not the target of the law.

So make it illegal for criminals to buy more than one handgun a month. That targets the criminals.
 
The reason this law is such a b*tch is how irrelevant to reality it is. Many of use only buy guns when we see a good deal, so we might buy 4 guns in a week or we might buy one in the entire year. Neither would seem that strange to me, and I'm sure most of you agree. This law doesn't limit how many handguns you buy total... you can't buy two guns a year if it is in the same month, but you can buy 12 in a year if you space them out. It's real effect is just another layer of arcane restrictions that don't do anything to curb crime, just increase aggravation.
 
From a practical point of view, can anyone actually afford to buy 13 $500ish handguns a year?
I can't afford a Rolls Royce either, but I think others should be able to buy one.

Practical is not the definition of Constitutional.

How many gunfights have you been in? None? So this CCW thing is not really necessary.
Is that what you are saying?
 
+1 what [pb] said. Last week I ran across 3 *really* good finds. If I would have found 3 more that good I would have taken 6. Then I just have to stop shopping for a while. :)


-Matt
 
Well if you buy two within a ten day period, you could argue that you average less than one per month considering all the years you've been alive ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top