Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/26/2001 9:47:16 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a 1990 New Jersey law that banned assault weapons.

Those challenging the law included a group called the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, two firearms manufacturers, a licensed dealer and individual firearm owners.

They argued the ban was unconstitutionally vague and violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal protection.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law. Violators of the ban face between three and five years in prison.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the opponents said the law covered 66 named models and "substantially identical" firearms. They questioned whether it provided sufficient notice to firearms owners and adequate standards for the police.

New Jersey defended the law, saying it was not intended to cover firearms used for legitimate hunting or target shooting. It said the federal government had banned the imports of 58 types of assault weapons and had outlawed such weapons.

The state said no compelling reason existed for the Supreme Court to hear the case and added that the law did not violate any constitutional right. The justices denied the appeal without any comment or dissent.
www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=0JWQAAZXPAUHUCRBAEOCFFAKEEARMIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=405654
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 1:28:56 PM EDT
I'd like to see more about this. Reading between the lines leads me to believe that SCROTUS refused to hear the case and said that the NJ assault weapons ban did not violate any of the rights noted in the plaintiffs suit. I doubt they specifically mentioned the second or there would be shit all over the internet.
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 1:30:57 PM EDT
Drat!!!
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 4:39:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:02:47 PM EDT
I didn't read the whole article but I have had this discussion with a few friends before. I believe its basically a folly to try to get the Supreme Court to hear a Gun Control Related case unless the presiding chair is moderate. The reason is the pressure the Anti-Gun lobby places on the court system allows the the fact if the SCOTUS rules on a Un-constitutional gun ban then a lot of the states have to review their gun control laws... Make a lot of anti-gunners pissed off... RIGHT OR WRONG its really who can come up with the most money to let "Their" justice speak...

Hopefully we will get a good ruling one of these days, maybe it will set a prescience against a lot of these damn laws!
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:30:26 PM EDT
Looks like the Emerson appeal will be a waste of time now.
Top Top