NJ COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT,
> HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW
>
> In a landmark written opinion filed February 27, a New Jersey Superior
> Court recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held
> that a citizen’s Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be
> involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.
> “The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long
> overdue,” said ANJRPC Regional Vice President and attorney Evan F. Nappen,
> who represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. In
> the appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the
> Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant
> legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.
>
> This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of Columbia
> case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
> struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. on the ground
> that it violates the Second Amendment.
>
> “The legal significance of the Second Amendment is finally being
> recognized by American courts,” Nappen continued, “and this New Jersey
> case is part of a growing trend in American jurisprudence.”
>
> In the New Jersey case, the appellant was denied re-issuance of his
> Firearms Purchaser ID card based on his consent to relinquish firearms
> seized in a domestic dispute in 2000. In 2004, New Jersey enacted a law
> barring Firearms Purchaser ID cards to any person whose firearms have been
> seized and not returned.
>
> The Honorable John H. Pursel, J.S.C. held that the statute did not apply
> and the Firearms Purchaser ID card should be issued because the appellant
> did not know that his prior consent to relinquish his firearms would
> subject him to permanent loss of his Second Amendment rights under the
> 2004 law.
>
> The ruling states in key part:
>
> “Fundamental fairness is a doctrine to be sparingly applied. It is
> appropriately applied in those rare cases where not to do so will subject
> the defendant to oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation.” Doe
v.
> Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), citing State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679, 712,
> 563 A.2d 1 (1989) (Garibaldi, J., concurring and dissenting). Egregious
> deprivation would surely be the result if this applicant were precluded
> from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the
> fact that he consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was
> impossible for him to have known that such action would later subject him
> to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.
>
> Additionally, it is clear that in consenting to the disposition of the
> weapons seized as a result of the temporary restraining order, the
> applicant did not intend to waive his right to bear arms as provided by
> the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He therefore could not have
> knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waived that right.” (Emphasis
> added.)
>
> The full text of the opinion is available here:
> http://www.evannapp
<http://www.evannappen.com/lawupdate1gunbook/pdfs/peterson.pdf>;
en.com/lawupdate1gunbook/pdfs/peterson.pdf
>
> The Warren County Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal in the case.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !