Gun Lawyer Episode 112
case, firearms, new jersey, expunged, welfare, second amendment rights, point, gun rights, second amendment, permit, denied, guns, gun, firearm, expungement, appeal, interest, state, court, heller
Evan Nappen, Louis Nappen, Speaker 3
Evan Nappen 00:19
I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. We have a special guest in the studio today, and I’ve known this special guest for quite a long time. This guest is my brother, Louis Nappen. The reason that Louis is here today is we’re going to be talking about a court case in New Jersey that may change everything. It’s not an exaggeration. We’re going at an issue in our gun laws that is an issue in every gun permit case, Firearms ID Card, Permit to Carry and weapon forfeiture, because it goes directly to the heart of the disqualifiers, what we call the disabilities. We are challenging one of the disabilities that is the most troublesome of them all because it is incredibly subjective. We see it being abused and used to deny citizens’ rights all the time, and we finally have an opportunity here. It’s very exciting and can have tremendous impact.
Evan Nappen 01:38
Now, I want to first thank our sponsor, who is the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, ANJRPC, for helping us to get the word out here and to be a proud supporter of our show. This case is really significant. And it’s very interesting as to how it progressed, and the timing of it, given the Bruen decision. First, let me introduce my brother Louis. Louis, how are you today?
Louis Nappen 02:20
I’m fine. Thank you very much.
Evan Nappen 02:21
Good. I’m glad you’re with us to talk about this. Now, Louis did most of the heavy lifting in this case, and it is very interesting because it’s an appeal to the Appellate Division of New Jersey, in which the Appellate Division did something that we have rarely ever seen before. Why don’t you tell us about what occurred here, Louis, in the procedural aspect of this case?
Louis Nappen 02:54
I’ll give you a little bit of the history here. We have a person who applied for a permit to purchase a handgun. He already had a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, and he wanted some more guns. In New Jersey, you have to apply for each additional handgun, and he applied. He was denied under the clause, the statutory subsection. There are 11 disqualifier subsections in our law, and he was denied to the one that says the issuance should not happen to any person where the issuance would not be in Page – 2 – of 13
the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. That’s the vague, overbroad, how are you supposed to know, clause that he was denied under. It was not in the interest of public health, safety or welfare for him to get handgun permits, even though he already had a Firearms ID Card.
Evan Nappen 04:02
As a matter of fact, he had had a firearms virtual ID card and other handgun permits issued by this same department. Correct?
Louis Nappen 04:11
Evan Nappen 04:12
He had had them since I think 2017. He had had these permits and had been issued, and then he applied.
Louis Nappen 04:22
In 2020, he was denied this way. He appeals, he takes it up to them, and the way it works. He was denied by his police chief, but that’s how it works in Jersey, and then you can appeal to the Superior Court, county for a hearing. Now, when he did that, the state then moved to revoke his Firearm Purchaser ID Card and to compel the sale of his firearms that he already possessed.
Evan Nappen 04:53
Now, before we go further, what was the allegation or what was the basis or the foundation for them even trying to claim that there’s some danger or not in the interest of public health, safety, welfare here? Because he did not have what’s called a per se disqualifier. He was not a convicted felon. He didn’t have a restraining order. There was nothing otherwise that prohibited him from having a firearm. Right?
Louis Nappen 05:20
That’s correct. Yep. No restraining orders, no convictions on his record, none of that. All he had.
Evan Nappen 05:26
What did they rely on? What did they rely on?
Evan Nappen 05:29
Oh, oh, okay. Now, wait a minute. So, he’s being denied now his Second Amendment rights. They’re revoking in de facto revocation to take away his old licenses, permits and try to grab his guns over an expunged matter that they reopened. So, for them to do this, and for the judge to grant it, it must have been incredibly serious. What was expunged? What were these heinous offenses that were expunged that now opening expungement lead to his loss of Second Amendment rights? What were they?
Louis Nappen 05:29 Page – 3 – of 13
They relied on two dismissed and expunged matters. The State motioned that they were aware of this, but they were expunged. The state motioned to open up the expungement, first off, and this judge granted that. Then they used the underlying facts of the expunged dismissed allegations as to
Louis Nappen 06:35
Well, one was, he was alleged to at one point, as I said, both were dismissed. Yeah. To have taken a trailer that was, he thought was abandoned. And he found out, it wasn’t abandoned. It was a trailer hitch, and it got resolved.
Evan Nappen 06:54
So yeah, so we had a theft of a trailer hitch that he thought was abandoned. Okay, what was the second one?
Louis Nappen 07:01
The second was, he was much younger at the time, but he worked in tree service and a woman who refused to pay him for his services. He was regretful, and he threw a log through her back windshield, back in the day, but paid for it. Totally regretful. And that’s when it got dismissed. Okay.
Evan Nappen 07:22
And that was and that was in. That was, he was not in
Louis Nappen 07:27
I want to say, though, she was not in the car or anything, just out of frustration. He did that.
Evan Nappen 07:32
Okay. And that was approximately for all about 10 years, prior to any of this, eight to 10 years prior. Right? I believe so. But he was 21.
Louis Nappen 07:43
Yeah, with his 30s. Correct,
Evan Nappen 07:45
Right, and that he even got it expunged. And everything was dismissed. So, that’s the sole basis, these two incidents from when he was a young, foolish guy, and he got them even expunged. None of them are per se disqualifiers. None of them even raised to a level of felony even then. They were simply what were in New Jersey
Louis Nappen 08:13
Handled in municipal court.
Evan Nappen 08:15
Misdemeanors, what Jersey calls disorderly persons. And by opening up expunged records and going at these two matters in his past, they not only denied his permit, right, and all. But they also sought to take his guns. And they did, didn’t they? Page – 4 – of 13
Louis Nappen 08:36
They did. The judge made him turn them over and get rid of a good amount of his possessions. Then, in the end, it went to the county court, and the judge totally granted everything that the state wanted in this in terms of revoking his F pick, he obviously denied his permits to purchase, compelled the sale of his firearms. Everything.
Evan Nappen 09:04
And this is having permits and guns for a number of years. He never had any problems or issues with the guns that he had. And, and so the section that got utilized here, to cause all this on this most minor of matters, was this public health, safety, welfare, basis for denial. And isn’t that in? That’s one of the disqualifiers in New Jersey law.
Louis Nappen 09:37
Correct. And what’s interesting about that, you want to emphasize, and I think it’s important to emphasize, that it’s not “in the interest of public health, safety or welfare.” Because that’s the analysis goes into that in terms of what’s happened since the Bruen decision. Didn’t want to go there.
Evan Nappen 09:56
And so, we filed an appeal. By the way, this was out of Bergen County, wasn’t it?
Louis Nappen 09:58
Yeah, it was Bergen County in 2020. Believe it or not, this is how long it takes to go through the courts. In 2020, he was denied. In 2021 was, by the time he had his hearing and everything. He filed his appeal, my brief, my initial brief, to the Appellate Division after he lost, he appealed it was in October of 2021. October of 2022 rolls around, and all the briefs have, I’m waiting for a decision to come down on the case. But I’m very thorough in my briefing. And one of my points that I put forward, way prior to the Bruen decision out of the (United States) Supreme Court, was emphasizing how under Heller and McDonald, the public health, safety, not in the interest of public health, safety, welfare should be found unconstitutional. I had preserved that issue at the trial level and on the appellate level. So, I argued, in my brief, that that should be found unconstitutional. Then Bruen comes down, and I get this message from the Appellate Division that they are interested in, said that they are requesting supplemental briefing as to how the Bruen decision affects this particular argument that issuance not in the interest of public health, safety, welfare is or is not constitutional. This is really rare for that to happen, in terms of suddenly being asked to do supplemental briefing.
Evan Nappen 11:40
They not only asked for you and our firm to submit the supplemental briefing.
Louis Nappen 11:45
Yeah, we had ten days to do it, too.
Evan Nappen 11:47
They also invited in the Attorney General, didn’t they? Page – 5 – of 13
Louis Nappen 11:52
They asked the Attorney General to come in as Amicus, which is interesting, because the Attorney General is the State as well as the State Prosecutor being the State. So, at that point, it was kind of two against one here.
Evan Nappen 12:03
Well, they wanted to make the odd fair because they know they’re against us.
Louis Nappen 12:06
And so that’s true. And then. So, we put forward
Evan Nappen 12:13
Then we decided as well, hey, look, you know what, they’re bringing in the Attorney General. We got a hold of as well and spoke to the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, because this issue was very important and affects members and gun owners throughout the state. The Association, themselves, came in as an amicus brief. They submitted a brief on the side of the Second Amendment. They had their brief done by Dan Schmutter, who’s a colleague and excellent Second Amendment attorney as well. So, it ends up that the sides are the Attorney General and the Prosecutor, and on our side is the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and our firm. All the parties submitted their briefing on the constitutional issue here. The challenge to this clause, this disability that is subjective, and is what we call “the catch all”. We call it the all-inclusive weasel clause.
Louis Nappen 13:22
It is the weasel clause.
Evan Nappen 13:33
It’s a weasel clause because that’s what used to produce denials without having any boundaries, or really any structure. It’s simply the whim, the whim of a judge is basically all it takes.
Louis Nappen 13:50
I’ve handled and you’ve handled several cases, hundreds at least, where they’ve applied this. It’s used broadly. They try to allege it’s not, but it totally is. And it’s for the most I mean. I’ve seen it where a guy, after being frustrated in a verbal argument, went to his basement and took a hammer to his workbench and hammered it loudly. And that’s not in the interest of the public. Or you’ve seen it where they try to allege, he threw a pretzel at me or whatever.
Evan Nappen 14:22
Right, it really is. We’ve actually had that case. So yeah, finally now we see a review that’s going to take place by the Appellate court and where they have taken it the extra step of requesting supplemental briefing, brought in the Attorney General, and we have an amicus from the NRA affiliate, the State Affiliate in New Jersey, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, all filed on this critical issue, because every license, every permit, and weapon forfeiture utilizes the same set of Page – 6 – of 13
disqualifiers where this catchall resides. This is incredibly important. When we come back, we’re going to give you even more of the details of this fight.
Louis Nappen 15:15
Evan Nappen 15:17
The argument and how important it is so that you can watch as the decision comes down and it’s going to lay out finally, and we hope once and for all, knock out this atrocious disqualifier that has harmed the gun rights of so many New Jerseyans.
Speaker 3 15:43
For over 30 years, Attorney Evan Nappen has seen what rotten laws do to good people. That’s why he’s dedicated his life to fighting for the rights of America’s gun owners. A fearsome courtroom litigator fighting for rights, justice, and freedom. An unrelenting gun rights spokesman tearing away at anti-gun propaganda to expose the truth. Author of six best-selling books on gun rights, including Nappen on Gun Law, a bright orange gun law Bible that sits atop the desk of virtually every lawyer, police chief, firearms dealer, and savvy gun owner. That’s what made Evan Nappen America’s Gun Lawyer. Gun laws are designed to make you a criminal. Don’t become the innocent victim of a vicious anti-gun legal system. This is the guy you want on your side. Keep his name and number in your wallet and hope you never have to use it. But if you live, work, or travel with a firearm, that deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen – America’s Gun Lawyer.
Speaker 3 16:58
You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Evan Nappen 17:14
Okay, welcome back to Gun Lawyer. I’m Evan Nappen, and with me today in the studio is Louis Nappen, my brother. Louis is an attorney with my firm and is our top appellate attorney. He has done just great work on many cases, including winning in the New Jersey Supreme Court, getting a unanimous decision, which was just astounding. When he told me we won and we had the unanimous decision, I was looking out the window for the pigs with wings. But yeah, it happened.
Louis Nappen 17:52
Due process on firearm permit appeals.
Evan Nappen 17:54
It was just great. Great. I also want to thank and take a moment here to thank the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are like I said a sponsor, and they joined immediately, in terms of, you know, we were in a crazy tight timeframe. But the Association stepped right up and got Dan Schmutter to submit a wonderful amicus brief in this case, so that the gun owners of New Jersey had an organizational representative as well, putting forward the Second Amendment arguments that are so Page – 7 – of 13
vital. This is why I really want to encourage all of you to join the Association. You need to be a member of ANJRPC. If you’re not a member, you’re doing yourself and our rights a disservice. They are the number one gun rights organization in New Jersey. There are other gun rights groups, too, and this is not in any way to disparage them. I’m just telling you that you need to belong to the Association for sure. That’s a must have.
Evan Nappen 19:09
Because not only are they there on the litigation front and standing up for your rights, but also, they’re there in Trenton with a full-time paid lobbyist. The News Alerts go out to members informing of the immediate threats and dangers and even have the ability by simply pushing a button to notify your legislators of our dislike or like of whatever they’re proposing. Of course, in New Jersey normally it’s extreme dislike, and this way you can stay on top of it. You’re really helping these things make a huge difference. And although in New Jersey we have one of the toughest, most difficult areas to fight, we are the front have lines on the Second Amendment in New Jersey. And it is ANJRPC that’s there fighting for you. So, please join. Just go to anjrpc.org.
Louis Nappen 20:14
So, moving right into it. I just want to say we requested oral argument. It was granted, and we had oral argument. We’re expecting a decision shortly from it. But let me now get into the argument that had to be made here. In our brief and also in oral argument to the three-judge panel at the appellate. Now, it’s a little rare to have this many people of course involved just at the Appellate level as opposed to the (New Jersey) Supreme Court or higher. But this is why this case is going to, it’s going to mean something. What we have here is, if you recall, what happened in Bruen. Now, it wasn’t just that. I mean, it’s a wonderful case. But it wasn’t just, they tried to say it was just about carry permits. It’s more than that, because Justice Thomas did a wonderful thing. He put forward a standard of review to beat all standard of reviews.
Louis Nappen 21:10
And what he wrote in the opinion, that is the controlling opinion, is in keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition, may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside of the Second Amendment’s unqualified command. That’s amazing language.
Louis Nappen 22:01
There are two parts to that, that I particularly attacked, our firm here, in our brief and in our argument. The first part, as I mentioned earlier, it’s important that we notice, what are they denying MU you for here? It’s in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. Yet the Supreme Court has specifically said that government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. There you have it. Prima facie, that it should be found unconstitutional. Now, you know, this is of course,
Evan Nappen 22:38 Page – 8 – of 13
because it says it right there. The court is saying you can’t base it on interest and New Jersey’s disqualifier says just that – interest. And yet they still think that this somehow is constitutional.
Louis Nappen 22:51
The Attorney General in his argument actually had the balls, excuse my language, can you actually say, nerve, actually, just because it uses the same word “interest” doesn’t mean that it’s not positing an important interest just because it uses interest.
Evan Nappen 23:17
Just because it says it, doesn’t mean that it says it. Right? It’s like, that’s like isn’t that like one of the 10 commandments of wokeism? Doesn’t matter what it says. Right? Exactly.
Louis Nappen 23:29
I mean, it says it right there. You can’t use promoting an interest. And it’s and you’re saying interest of public health, safety, welfare. That’s exactly. Not only that. It’s the same language. Okay, so that’s first off. So, if they buy that argument. I don’t know. I’ve seen some things happen. What can I tell you? By the way, we didn’t say the name of the case here.
Evan Nappen 23:53
First read the caption in full. The full caption of the case of MU without the initials but glad right without using. Here’s everything that’s at stake here in the appeal is in the title caption of the case. Go ahead.
Louis Nappen 24:13
No joke. Normally you see it’s like State versus MU. This case is, In the matter of the appeal of the denial of MU’s application for a handgun purchase permit & In the matter of the revocation of MU’s Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and compelling the sale of his firearms. That is the title.
Evan Nappen 24:33
And the reason we call it the title is the demonstration of the escalation that can occur when you apply for your gun license and get denied. Then when that got denied, it snowballed to now we want to revoke your Firearms ID Card. Not only do we want to revoke your Firearms ID Card, but also, we want to take your guns. So, they did everything here. They went for the denial, the revocation and taking the guns simply because a man, who had already been licensed, already had a Firearms ID card, already possessed guns with no per se disqualifier, had the nerve to reapply to get an extra handgun purchase permit. That was his right to do. And the entire escalation occurs on this man to disenfranchise his Second Amendment rights and steal his guns.
Louis Nappen 25:25
And that doesn’t even include the separate motion, the prehearing motion, to open up his expungement, which is a whole separate
Evan Nappen 25:31
Which is another separate right, where now you invade what is supposed to be Page – 9 – of 13
Louis Nappen 25:38
deemed not to have occurred.
Evan Nappen 25:39
Right, exactly and been rehabilitated.
Louis Nappen 25:43
You can’t get an expungement unless you are rehabilitated.
Evan Nappen 25:46
Oh, but that doesn’t stop them from wanting to open it up when we’re dealing with guns. Lou, we’re dealing with guns. So, anything flies with the Jersey narrative when it comes to attacking guns, gun owners and gun rights. Go ahead. Tell us more.
Louis Nappen 26:00
So, the first part, of course, is I think it’s unconstitutional on its face. The other part is the fact about the nation’s historical tradition. In Bruen, they say Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them. So, they have to prove that people would lose their Second Amendment rights not because issuance of some permit of or just to lose their rights to firearms, or arms in that for that case, not just firearms, in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, and arguably up to the 14th Amendment in 1868, which incorporates the states cannot deny these rights either. So, they have to find law from that period of our nation’s founding to say that people lost their Second Amendment rights in the interest of public health, safety, welfare without
Evan Nappen 27:07
Even the British wouldn’t have tried that on us.
Louis Nappen 27:11
Evan Nappen 27:12
Louis Nappen 27:14
And it’s how they understood it then, too. But you have to remember, we’re up against people who believe militia is the same as National Guard and not what it understood to believe it was in 1791 etc. You know, we the people,
Louis Nappen 27:32
Just to also be fair here, because this is important, not only because you filed this appeal and covered all these issues. Then when Bruen came out, this entire issue took on a whole new dimension, and hence the whole battle on this constitutional issue. But in your original appeal, you actually raised 11 separate points, and I just think it’s worth talking about them briefly to see how thorough and just what a Page – 10 – of 13
railroad on this case. So, for example, your point one, in doing this, you have to talk about how the court erred, your talk that it ruled about community caretaking and why did you argue community caretaking as a point? Just really quick. What is the significance of that?
Louis Nappen 28:25
Well, that comes from another Supreme Court case that they’re not allowed to just take firearms under alleged community caretaking standard and that’s basically an amendment
Evan Nappen 28:40
It’s a Fourth Amendment violation, isn’t it?
Louis Nappen 28:42
Evan Nappen 28:43
Fourth Amendment. Then in the second point, you raise public health, safety, welfare as not authorizing seizure or forfeiture.
Louis Nappen 28:52
Yeah, the state never moved under anything that was an official forfeiture motion. There are different ways you can forfeit or obtain firearms. There are restraining orders. There’s Extreme Risk Protection Orders, better known as red flag laws. There’s a duty to warn laws. There’s different. Contraband, if you use it in a crime. None of this was here. They’re just saying what kind of. By the way, public health, safety, welfare is not one of the listed elements under the statute that make you a certain person not to possess firearms.
Evan Nappen 29:28
Right! So, in other words, there’s criminal prohibitors where if you’re a convicted felon, you can also be criminally prosecuted if you have a gun. But public health, safety, welfare isn’t a criminal prohibitor. It’s only found administratively. Yet, they abuse it to this degree. Then you also in your third point, you talk about the licensing statute itself, you can’t add things to the form, including prohibiting and adding requirements.
Louis Nappen 30:00
Let me talk about that briefly. Just about that. Interesting about that is that was one of my published cases that I am very proud of, which eliminated a lot of extra bureaucratic nonsense. Ten years ago, at this point, probably. I had won a case. I actually won three appellate division (appeals), and one of them got published about having no added forms. It’s only the state mandated forms, and they’re supposed to be consistent among all the municipalities. No rogue police chiefs or condition about this or that coming down the pike. But in this case, what are they saying a condition of this is? That you have to give up your firearm rights. I mean, your firearms themselves, or whatever else, that you have to open up your expungement. These are added conditions that are not in the statute.
Evan Nappen 30:57 Page – 11 – of 13
And that’s counter to case law right there. Then point five, you talked about Cunningham, and that is a case in New Jersey, that quasi seems to be something that the prosecutors love to try to utilize to justify taking guns without due process. But that’s also something you argue is not applicable. Then in point five, you talk about search and compelled sale or destruction, and that’s unlawful because it offends equity. How is it an equity issue?
Louis Nappen 31:31
Well, equity of course, a forfeiture.
Evan Nappen 31:33
There we go. Simple. Law School 101. Isn’t it? Right away. Then you argue in point six, that there was irreparable harm since they did what they did with the guns and his gun rights. And then in seven, you raise something very interesting. You raise about being denied a jury trial. Tell us about that. What’s that about?
Louis Nappen 31:56
Well, there’s a case that came down about how if property is. A woman who had her car taken and she wanted, it’s a 1990 Honda, it’s an older case, said that she’s entitled to a jury trial if the state moves for forfeiture. Well, firearms are property. And if you have a judge that you know is going to be going this way, I’d rather have a jury make that, as be the tryer of facts and apply it to the facts. So, why isn’t he entitled to a jury on his property just like anybody else is, if they’re going to accept, which I don’t think it’s correct, that they’re allowed to even forfeit or move for forfeiture on his firearms.
Evan Nappen 32:36
Then in point eight, you said that the Court in Bergen required the petitioner to register with the court how many and what types of firearms he possesses. What was that all about?
Louis Nappen 32:43
When he first came up there, that judge said, “Well, we want these firearms out of your hands while we’re deciding this case. So, he had to tell them what firearms he possessed,
Evan Nappen 33:00
In effect was a de facto registration, wasn’t it?
Louis Nappen 33:04
That’s right. That’s what that is. I would call it that.
Evan Nappen 33:07
Then you said the court also erred in regarding the
Louis Nappen 33:14
public, that he is not even a danger to the public health, safety, welfare, even if except that standard, write of course. Page – 12 – of 13
Evan Nappen 33:20
Right. Of course. Then even factually, how do these two minor DP matters that ended up all expunged and ancient history? How does that in any way actually make him an actual danger, which isn’t really ever explained there because it’s so subjective. Then you talk about in point 10, New Jersey’s restriction is an offense to Heller and McDonald. This is where in point 10, you went heavily into all the different constitutional arguments at the time that was pre Bruen. Right?
Louis Nappen 33:57
Yeah, I preserved this from day one. In fact, most cases, if not all, it’s well worth raising the Second Amendment to make sure it’s raised.
Evan Nappen 34:05
You raised it thoroughly as you could at the time. And that’s where the supplemental and then the 11th point was just procedural.
Louis Nappen 34:13
Well, it’s just a procedural, but I try to protect my client by trying to make sure his name doesn’t get too much out there because it’s effect.
Evan Nappen 34:23
Right. And so that’s very good. So, that was the initial brief. That was it. Was it 77 pages with the appendix? Just hammering with that, and then they want supplemental, which was great in the light of Bruen, that’s brought us to this battle right now. The oral arguments have already been heard. The briefs are in, and we are now waiting for this decision. If we can just knock out this arbitrary, this subjective, this tool of disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights that has been on the books in New Jersey, it will help so many gun owners and be a really wonderful day for the empowerment of our Second Amendment rights.
Louis Nappen 35:13
Let me just say. There is a third aspect that we’re also arguing that interest, not in the interest of public health, safety, safety, welfare, constitutes an unconstitutional balancing test. And that’s important to note. I’ve been arguing this, because of Heller saying, you can’t have a balancing test. In this case, the balance they’re trying to say, your individual, natural, fundamental right, to defend yourself and to arm yourself against this nebulous public interest. And that’s the balance that courts are balancing when they do this. And you’re not supposed to have a balancing test for this right at all.
Evan Nappen 35:58
It’s almost like means end scrutiny, which the Court has completely rejected.
Evan Nappen 36:03
They said it’s one step too many. You can’t go there. And yet New Jersey has consistently tried to utilize that as well. But that is also barred, done, dead, by Bruen. This is extremely exciting and can’t wait. Page – 13 – of 13
Louis Nappen 36:03
Louis Nappen 36:21
This dates back to 1968 with the Burton case where they found that public health, safety, welfare constitutional, because it wasn’t yet incorporated. And they’re talking about militias, which is National Guard, not individual rights.
Evan Nappen 36:36
Well, that’s where the Bruen case has completely gutted the entire foundation of New Jersey’s gun laws, because the Burton v. Sills case is where they decided that the Second Amendment did not apply at all to New Jersey, and they viewed gun rights as strictly a privilege, not a right. They are in fact, dead wrong, and now, the gun laws that were passed with this belief that it is simply a privilege, and they could do whatever the hell they wanted. Well, those days are coming to an abrupt end. It’s going to take victory after victory, and that’s what we’re working on right here, with the MU case. So, folks, stay tuned. I want to thank Louis for joining us today, and I want to thank ANJRPC as a sponsor of the show. Please make sure you join. Go to anjrpc.org. Let me just remind you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.
Speaker 3 37:43
Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.