Eugene Volokh • July 19, 2010 3:47 pm
In a few states — including New Jersey — people need a license to even get a firearm to keep at home, and the police may deny such a license if they think the person poses a danger to others. This isn’t limited to getting concealed carry licenses; it applies to having a gun in the first place. And it isn’t limited to people who have been convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, or even to people who have been found by a preponderance of the evidence to have committed or threatened violent acts (that’s the standard usually used for domestic restraining orders).
In the Matter of Novello (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 15) offers a striking example of how this can be used: Novello was denied the ability to get any firearm (whether handgun or long gun) because his ex-wife says he “became angry at times, slammed doors with force and caused damage,” which made her fear him. (The wife also alleged that “Novello stated that his stomach was ‘turned’ by the idea of her having a boyfriend and he was going to get a gun,” but the trial judge expressly said “that it was difficult for him to determine whether Novello had actually threatened to kill Pissucci if she dated someone else,” so it sounds like he wasn’t relying on that.) Here’s what seems to me to be the heart of the appellate court’s analysis:
{Novello} acknowledged that he and Pissucci argued at times. He admitted that, on one occasion, he slammed a door and a piece of the door stop “snapped off.” ...
After hearing argument from counsel for the parties, the court rendered an opinion from the bench. The court noted that Pissucci’s behavior probably contributed “to the situation.” The court found that Novello’s relationship with Pissuci involved “a great deal of acrimony” and was “very argumentative{.}” The court stated that Novello and Pissucci
trigger each other into verbal arguments. They trigger each other into losing their temper{s}. They trigger each other so that doors are slammed. They trigger each other so that doors are slammed and broken. They trigger each other so that the wife is now fearful if he gets a gun ... she is going to be killed.
The trial judge stated that it was difficult for him to determine whether Novello had actually threatened to kill Pissucci if she dated someone else. The judge also stated that, while Novello said that he wanted to obtain a gun to protect himself in Scotch Plains, there were “very little incidents of crime, at least incidents of violent crime” in that municipality....
The court found that the Police Chief had properly determined that issuance of a handgun purchase permit and FPIC to Novello would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare
. In our view, the court’s finding is supported by credible evidence.
As we have explained, the testimony presented at the hearing established that Novello and his former wife have a volatile and argumentative relationship, which has at times prompted Novello to act in an angry manner. It is undisputed that Novello’s actions have included the forceful slamming of doors, which has resulted in property damage, although the damage was relatively minor. Furthermore, Novello failed to establish that he had a legitimate need for the weapon.
We are satisfied that the court’s factual findings support its conclusion that it would not be in the interest of the public’s health, safety and welfare for Novello to possess a handgun, particularly in view of his volatile relationship with his former wife.Source:
http://volokh.com/2010/07/19/no-guns-for-you-youve-slammed-doors-very-hard/#more-34492Should speech rights be restricted for someone who is interested in Russian architecture or in Chinese gardening? (They might have divided loyalties and be prone to spying against the US.)
Should religious rights be denied someone who studies Mayan culture? (They might be prone to human sacrifice.)
Should people who punch bags be preemptively imprisoned? (They might assault someone.)
Should all of these cases be settled by the arbitrary "discretion" of some individual politician? Without trial or due process of any kind?
Should you really loose your right to keep and bear arms because you slammed doors in your own house?
This is just an example of why the Supreme Court should use strict scrutiny in addressing government regulation and especially arbitrary discretion by anti-gun ideologues. "May infringe" is unconstitutional when applied to any right, never mind enumerated, constitutional rights.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
