Gun policy analysis thread.

[TSherbs]

Oops

[dneal]

I'll pursue the Jersey law a little bit. Here is another articles description of the package of laws that were passed:

"The new laws will mandate firearm training for people seeking gun permits, ban .50 caliber weapons, require new New Jersey residents to register their firearms, regulate the sale of handgun ammunition and create a database of sales, require firearm retailers to sell microstamping-enabled firearms, upgrade certain gun manufacturing crimes to second-degree, and allow the state Attorney General to sue gun manufacturers."

Still looking, tho ....

You might start with the lawsuit, which references the NJ law being challenged and what those challenges are.

[TSherbs]

It turns out that there are several new laws, and I am not energized enough to pursue and read/quote them all. But I finally found this from the NJ legislative website on one of the directives: https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2022/A2000/1765_I1.HTM

[TSherbs]

The directive ends with this, which I applaud. It is bold, sweeping, and on the edge of constitutionally acceptable (if not over). Good for them. I agree with pushing the envelope in this direction whenever possible. I am neither neutral nor traditional on this topic (which I have stated several times already).

The bill provides that a gun industry member’s conduct is to be deemed a proximate cause of the nuisance if, notwithstanding any intervening actions including, but not limited to, criminal actions by third parties, the endangerment was a reasonably foreseeable effect of such conduct.

The bill allows the Attorney General to commence an action at any time seeking an injunction prohibiting any gun industry member from engaging in a public nuisance, or continuing those practices or engaging therein or doing any acts in furtherance thereof, or an order providing for abatement of the nuisance, regardless of the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The provisions of the bill apply to all actions instituted on or after the date of the bill’s enactment and all proceedings taken subsequent to the date of bill’s enactment. Judgments entered or awards made pursuant to law from which no appeal is pending on the date of the bill’s enactment would not be affected by the bill’s provisions.

With respect to gun violence, the unavailability of a robust public nuisance statute and limitations imposed by federal law have limited the State’s ability to seek legal redress in situations where firearms manufacturers, retail dealers and other gun industry members may have knowingly or recklessly taken actions that have endangered the safety and health of New Jersey residents through the sale, manufacture, distribution, and marketing of lethal, but nonetheless legal, firearms. This bill would give the Attorney General greater authority to address injuries to public health and safety caused by the firearm industry.

[dneal]

Here’s the .pdf of the approved legislation, but you should start with the suit to see what the legal objection to the law is.

[TSherbs]

... but you should start with the suit to see what the legal objection to the law is.

Why?

[dneal]

... but you should start with the suit to see what the legal objection to the law is.

Why?

Relevance and efficiency, for a start. It would also have led you straight to NJ A1765, for example.

[TSherbs]

... but you should start with the suit to see what the legal objection to the law is.

Why?

Relevance and efficiency, for a start. It would also have led you straight to NJ A1765, for example.

Not "relevant" for me because I wanted to know what the law was, not what the objection was. I am not very interested in the objection, and I wish more states would do what New Jersey has done. My own state is far from it, but I can't get everything I want. Maine is still a great state, but the hunters prowling the woods right now (virtually everywhere) are a "nuisance" for sure. Walking my dog in the woods/meadow fringes right now at either sunrise or sunset carries enhanced risk (or at least the perception of risk). We are even careful about school cross-country running trails after Nov 1. Such is Maine life in November.

[dneal]

How was the law even brought to your attention?

[TSherbs]

How was the law even brought to your attention?

?? I think that it was your post (although I may have known about it before, I can't recall). Why?

[TSherbs]

I woke to the sound of gunfire in my "neighborhood" this morning. Ah, Maine in November...

[Chuck Naill]

We shot pumpkins yesterday with BB guns, pellets, arrows, and a sling shot.

[Chuck Naill]

Again, read historians.
"Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA began to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that.

After a gunman trying to kill Reagan in 1981 paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases.

The NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike the law down, and in 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional.

Now a player in national politics, the NRA PAC was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers, 99% of it going to Republican candidates. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election, and in that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms."

https://heathercoxrichardson.substac...m_medium=email

[dneal]

Looks like Scalia, just through his historical cites in Heller, was a better historian than HCR.

[Chuck Naill]

It is ironic that until 1959 the interpretation of the Second Amendment was the same as mine today, not a guarantee to own a gun, but NRA money talks and influences judges.

[dneal]

Emails Show CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting

[Chuck Naill]

Are these shooters using assault weapons defending themselves? I'm trying to understand why you posted this.

[kazoolaw]

Looks like Scalia, just through his historical cites in Heller, was a better historian than HCR.

Perhaps she subscribes to the Michael Bellesiles school of history.

[Chuck Naill]

Or, lets history speak for itself...ho, ho, ho!

Candy asks, "I notice neither of you negates what she said."

[kazoolaw]

dneal-
Do you think Richardson is counting on the short attention span of her readers? She says no legal article pre-1959 posits that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.
Mr. Justice Scalia quoted Judge Thomas Cooley, writing in 1880: " The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose." (emphasis added) And that quotation is followed by citations to several other 19th century sources taking the same position. Isn't 1880 before 1959?
The Scalia opinion contains actual 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. To paraphrase Harry Truman, if HRC read Heller clearly she didn't understand it.