There’s no law anywhere that limits how often you can speak out on politics, how often you can hold a protest, how often you can go to church, or how often you can publish your thoughts via the press. If there were, it would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional.
The same with trying to limit how often you can invoke your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights to protect yourself from imprisonment.
But with guns, states routinely think that they can ration how often you should be able to purchase one. New Jersey is one of a handful of states with such laws, and unsurprisingly, the Firearms Policy Coalition is challenging them.
And they just filed to invite someone else to the party.
oday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that its legal team has filed a motion to add the National Rifle Association (NRA) into the FPC Law case Struck v. Platkin, a challenge to New Jersey’s so-called “1-in-30” firearm purchase ban. The Garden State’s regulatory scheme prohibits law-abiding adults from acquiring more than one firearm in any 30-day period—a restriction that FPC contends has no basis in longstanding Second Amendment precedent or historical tradition.
Earlier this year, FPC secured a major victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when that court struck down California’s comparable ban. The motion to join the NRA in New Jersey comes as part of FPC’s national litigation strategy through its FPC Law program—a strategy dedicated to eliminating laws that impose unconstitutional limits on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
“New Jersey’s ban is unconstitutional, full stop,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We’re glad to welcome the NRA into this fight and to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our FPC Grassroots Army to eliminate yet another immoral, rights-rationing law. Together, we will bring this state—and the rest of the country—closer to the liberty the Constitution demands.”
Combs, of course, is completely correct. This is immoral and unconstitutional. It is, in fact, a gun ban simply because it makes it so you can’t buy a gun on your own schedule.
A right delayed is a right denied, and telling me I can either buy a handgun for self-defense or a hunting rifle for sporting purposes today and have to wait 30 days for the other isn’t functionally different from a law that flat out doesn’t let me buy one of those. At least, for the short term, which might well amount to the rest of my life if someone decides to hurt me before those 30 days are up, unless I opt to forgo putting food on my table.
With the NRA throwing its considerable resources into the fight, that’s only going to help with this case. It’s not that the FPC couldn’t win this one on their own, mind you. I think the case is strong enough. However, more firepower in a fight is almost never a bad thing. How many combat vets have you ever heard say they wish they had less ammo for a grueling firefight?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I can’t wait to see how this one shakes out.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
