New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense

Eatontown, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law and author of the “NEW JERSEY GUN LAW GUIDE” (www.evanappen.com) is offering a $5000* reward to the first person who can show to Attorney Nappen’s satisfaction the specific New Jersey gun law statutes (N.J.S. 2C:39-1 through 2C:39-16 or N.J.S. 2C:58-1 through N.J.S. 58-19) which authorizes the Plainfield churches to act as “collection sites” in which persons are paid up to $200 in cash with “no-questions- asked” for any type of gun from handguns to “assault firearms” and said guns are then destroyed without further investigation.

(For more information on this “buyback” see the following article: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110803/NJNEWS/308030028/Plainfield-religious-leaders-police-gearing-up-gun-buyback-program )

Attorney Nappen knows of no New Jersey gun law statute allowing:

1. the anonymous surrender of firearms;
2. the receipt of surrendered firearms by churches;
3. the unlicensed transport of guns to churches; and
4. the destruction without investigation of guns (which may be potential criminal evidence or stolen property that should be returned to their rightful owners.

He would very much like to include such laws his next edition of the “NEW JERSEY GUN LAW GUIDE”.

New Jersey law provides for the voluntary surrender of firearms only when the person giving up the firearms first gives written notice to the chief of police where he resides or the state police superintendent. Anonymous surrender is simply not authorized. The same law authorizes only the local police chief or the state police superintendent to receive surrendered guns. A church is not authorized under the statute to receive surrendered firearms. (See N.J.S. 2C:39-12.) Also, there is no transportation exemption for such a surrender scheme or bringing unlicensed guns to church. (See N.J.S. 2C:39-6.)

The immunity granted under New Jersey’s voluntary surrender law is limited to unlawful possession only and nothing more. By allowing for anonymous “no-questions-asked” surrender, the buyback program effectively creates de facto immunity far beyond this.

The purchase of firearms in New Jersey is strictly prohibited except for licensed dealers and individuals with a Handgun Purchase Permit or Firearms Purchaser ID Card. All gun sales are recorded and include the name and address of the buyer and seller. A church is not authorized under the statute to purchase firearms, no less from anonymous sellers. The payment of cash for a firearms purchase by anyone other than a licensed dealer or a permit/FID cardholder is not permitted. (See N.J.S. 2C:58-3(a) and (b).)

*Notice: The Reward offer expires on November 5, 2011.

ATF Overstepping its bounds / FBI implicated in gun smuggling operation

PHOENIX -- July 25, 2011
by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Full contact info at end

According to four BATFE agents familiar with the planned Fast and Furious gun-smuggling "fix," the bureau plans to release a "demand letter" by the end of this week, insisting that gun dealers in the four Mexico-border states begin reporting multiple rifle sales to the bureau.

All multiple rifle sales made to the same buyer within a five-day period will have to be reported beginning on August 14, on a form to be announced, according to the agents. The order will exclude rifles in .22 caliber, and rifles without detachable magazines. The agents acknowledged that congressional action, lawsuits, an injunction or other court orders might forestall the implementation of the hastily concocted scheme. Such preventive measures are already underway.

The rumored executive order to require gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to begin reporting multiple rifle sales to BATFE will not be issued. A previous Page Nine report that referred to the expected EO now appears incorrect. It is possible that the uproar over the program caused the administration to change its approach, and put all the heat on BATFE to "enact" law without Congress. The EO was widely reported and anticipated.

An exhaustive examination of statutory authority under which BATFE is required to operate revealed no legitimate power to demand these records, though the agents claimed they do have authority (two younger ones said they have no control over the process, and were simply following along).
When questioned if they would consider resigning if asked to implement an illegally introduced rule, the agents all either declined to answer or said no, they would not resign.

NJCSD member Dan Roberts recently had the opportunity to editorialize on possible changes to New Jersey's gun laws. You can read it here.

However, being that we're dealing with a New Jersey news provider with limited space, what you got was a very abbreviated version that, as a result, was missing a few salient points. What follows is Dan's original article in full, which may help fill in a few blanks.

The question posed to the author was, "In light of federal court decisions striking down gun restrictions in Chicago and Washington, D.C., do you believe New Jersey will have to change some of its strict gun laws?"

Most certainly. For the last forty years the legislature, via a combination of ignorance, arrogance and no small measure of hoplophobia has finally managed to box itself into a corner with regard to the way it treats the fundamental right to firearms as codified in the Second Amendment. The entire foundation of New Jersey’s blatantly unconstitutional gun laws is found in a 1968 State Supreme Court decision; Burton v. Sills. This decision relied on an intellectually bankrupt and now discarded interpretation of the Second Amendment as pertaining only to “the militia” or National Guard. This definition is more commonly known as the “collectivist interpretation” which was eliminated once and for all in the 2008 Supreme Court case Heller v. DC.

In light of last year’s Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court properly found that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right just as important as the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights; and, was binding against the states via the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, New Jersey is now in an untenable and completely indefensible position with regard to its firearms laws as they are currently written.  

There are several glaring issues that as a matter of law will be overturned by a Federal Court. First and foremost, NJ firearms laws are written in such a way that bans ALL firearms and related items, and then proceed to carve out extremely technical and narrow exemptions to that blanket ban. The current legislative language is so convoluted and incomprehensible that even judges and law enforcement officials don’t understand it, as the recent case of Brian Aitken in Mt. Laurel so clearly illustrated.

Additionally, numerous Court decisions over the last several decades have consistently found that no legislature may write laws that are effectively a wholesale ban on the practice of fundamental rights, regardless of how much some people may not like the result of people’s exercising them.

WASHINGTON TWP. - The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) in partnership with the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (MCRGO) filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief on Friday in support of the Second Amendment Foundation and Association of NJ Rifle and Pistol Club's case against the State of New Jersey, which will be heard in United States District Court.  Amicus Curiae briefs help explain legal issues, and are filed by interested parties in order to help courts reach proper decisions in complex cases.

The case challenges New Jersey's concealed carry permit statute to determine whether it is in compliance with a recent US Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago which ruled that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution applies to all 50 states, meaning that no state can make a law that violates Second Amendment freedoms.

New Jersey argues that it has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit, and that its laws do not violate Constitutional protections. Plaintiffs in the case contend that Americans have an absolute human right to defend themselves, a Constitutional right to do so with handguns, and that the right to both extends outside the home where the majority of crime occurs, obviating the need for a ‘carry permit’.

The NJCSD and MCRGO posit in their brief that the state’s policies and statutes run afoul of Second Amendment protections and violate Constitutional principles.  “Regulating a right into oblivion out of the reach of the citizenry is tantamount to not having those rights at all,” said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD.  “Imagine if you will a State in this day and age arguing that they can maintain Jim Crow laws where only certain citizens have rights, granting them selectively to those who are ‘connected’ while denying them to others.  It’s repulsive to think of, especially when you pause to consider it's a fundamental right to safety and survival in question.”

The two organizations observe that New Jersey’s exceedingly restrictive statutes have implications for citizens outside the state.  "MCRGO is grateful for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. Not only are we concerned about gun rights everywhere, but we are also interested in the safety of our members and other Michigan citizens who travel to, or through, New Jersey." Said Steve Dulan, attorney for the Michigan group and a member of their Board of Directors.

With some 40 other states having systems by which to authorize firearms carry permits on a fair and reasonable basis to their citizens, it is widely speculated that New Jersey’s discretionary standard will be overturned at some point.  Whatever the outcome, appeals are almost certainly to be filed after the District Court’s decision.

The NJCSD is a volunteer citizen’s group founded in 2003 to protect our rights to defend ourselves.  For information on the NJCSD, call 877-890-5460 or visit www.njcsd.org to learn more.

The MCRGO is the nation’s largest state-based 2nd Amendment advocacy group with thousands of members.  They can be contacted at 517-484-2746, or on the web at www.mcrgo.org

# # #