This news article is another installment in the saga of The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs ("Association"). On January 2, 2007 the Association prevailed at trial in its challenge to a Jersey City ordinance. The ordinance limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. Ruling for the Association, the trial court ordered the ordinance as void on grounds of preemption, equal protection, and arbitrariness.
Jersey City appealed, and on September 29, 2008 the Association again prevailed. Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Jersey City, 402 N.J. Super. 650 (App. Div. 2008). The thrill of victory, however, did not last long. After the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the parties certification, Gov. Corzine signed into law a state-wide limitation of one handgun purchase per month on August 6, 2009. The purpose of the limitation, according to the State, is to prevent illegal gun sales. The theory is that a person who qualifies for a permit to purchase a gun buys weapons for unqualified people.
Having won in court, the Association lost on the political battlefield. At this time the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. Interestingly, New Jersey does not have a provision in its state constitution securing the right to bear arms. Instead, it derives entirely from statute. As a result, it will be interesting to see how the Association does in federal court.
Group sues to overturn NJ's one-gun-a-month law.
Showing posts with label Equal Protection Clause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equal Protection Clause. Show all posts
Peremptory Strikes - The Impartial Jury Right
Sex-based and race-based peremptory strikes are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibiting race based strikes); J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (prohibiting sex based strikes).
New Jersey law prohibits them primarily as a violation of the right to an impartial jury under N.J. Const. art. I ¶¶ 5, 9, and 10. Thus, the New Jersey judiciary prevents the U.S. Supreme Court from exercising appellate review because there is no subject matter jurisdiction, so long as state law provides at least the same protection as federal law.
Here, the N.J. Supreme Court adopts a modification under federal law for purposes of state law analysis. State v. Osorio. See also Comment, Criminal Procedure - The Quintessential Exercise of the Peremptory Challenge: Denial of Peremptory Strike Possibly Violates Section One of the Kentucky Constitution. Rutgers L.J. 1485 (2007) (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143026).
Experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Smolensky, Esquire, knows how to protect his clients. Mr. Smolensky can provide consultations on all cases regarding trials.
Call Now—(856) 812-0321.
www.smolenskylaw.com
Click "New Judicial Federalism," labeled in the post footer, for more examples and explanations about this topic.
New Jersey law prohibits them primarily as a violation of the right to an impartial jury under N.J. Const. art. I ¶¶ 5, 9, and 10. Thus, the New Jersey judiciary prevents the U.S. Supreme Court from exercising appellate review because there is no subject matter jurisdiction, so long as state law provides at least the same protection as federal law.
Here, the N.J. Supreme Court adopts a modification under federal law for purposes of state law analysis. State v. Osorio. See also Comment, Criminal Procedure - The Quintessential Exercise of the Peremptory Challenge: Denial of Peremptory Strike Possibly Violates Section One of the Kentucky Constitution. Rutgers L.J. 1485 (2007) (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143026).
Experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Smolensky, Esquire, knows how to protect his clients. Mr. Smolensky can provide consultations on all cases regarding trials.
Call Now—(856) 812-0321.
www.smolenskylaw.com
Click "New Judicial Federalism," labeled in the post footer, for more examples and explanations about this topic.
Rational Basis Review - "Lovely as a Tree?"
This case presents another Big Government Bonanza, subjecting private property owners to yet another regulation.
Tree removal ordinance is valid exercise of police power because the details of the ordinance are rationally related to broad environmental goals.
Private property owners who remove a tree must either plant a new one on their private property or pay a fee to plant one on public property.
NJ Shore Builders Assoc. v. Twp. of Jackson.
Tree removal ordinance is valid exercise of police power because the details of the ordinance are rationally related to broad environmental goals.
Private property owners who remove a tree must either plant a new one on their private property or pay a fee to plant one on public property.
NJ Shore Builders Assoc. v. Twp. of Jackson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)