I own, personally, approximately $30,000 of guns, contrary to what Cease Fire New Jersey Says, that they do not make 10-round magazines for, he explained. I also have in my possession at my range over $20,000 of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
He then asked the chairman of the committee who exactly would be compensating him if the items suddenly become illegal.
Have you guys seen what is happening in Connecticut right now? he continued. One million gun owners in New Jersey are also gonna say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that we will not comply. And I can tell you here and now, I will not comply.
Aside from the obvious and strongest point -- "We will not comply" -- he also makes a potent and as yet untested argument: banning guns is a taking of property, which the Constitution forbids without just compensation. The 1994 assault weapons ban and the National Firearms Act got around that by allowing existing weapons to remain in public hands, while banning sales of newly manufactured weapons.
Connecticut's law requires militia rifles to be registered by a date (already past) or destroyed, so anyone possessing an unregistered militia rifle in Connecticut has been subject to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. I wouldn't be surprised if New Jersey's law takes a similar approach, and I am interested to see if anyone tries the taking argument in court.
This entry was published Thu Mar 27 10:16:33 CDT 2014 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2014-03-25 07:43:30.0.