After staying away from the gun issue for 15 years, the New Jersey Supreme Court is about to take up a gun law case, according to a report from The Record written by Salvador Rizzo of the newspaper’s State House Bureau.
The issue involved probably won’t improve the state of gun rights in the Garden State, one of the most restrictive in the country. In fact, the post decision trickle-down effect could make the state’s tough gun laws even tougher, especially for police and retired law enforcement personnel.
Guns, privacy rights and public workers’ pensions are some of the key issues before the state Supreme Court as it was set to begin a new term in September, with oral arguments for cases scheduled to begin Sept. 16.
The state’s high court decides 80 to 100 cases each year, touching on everything from Gov. Christie’s agenda to New Jerseyans’ everyday lives, The Record reported. Public-safety laws, criminal appeals, battles over constitutional rights such as gay marriage, and disputes over billions of dollars have all landed at the court in recent years.
New Jersey’s tough gun-control laws, however, are a rare sight at the Supreme Court. It has been 15 years since the last gun case was reviewed by the justices and the case in question has been hanging around the judicial system for some time.
Prosecutors have been trying to disarm a former Roseland police officer for the past five years because he allegedly poses a risk to public safety. They cited a turbulent, 15-year marriage that ended in divorce after several physical altercations.
Under Garden State law, former police officers are among the select few eligible for gun-carrying permits. Two lower courts have ruled in favor of the former officer, saying he should be able to keep his firearms and a hunting knife. However, the Supreme Court has granted an appeal filed by Morris County prosecutors seeking to overturn those rulings. They want the former policeman disarmed.
The Record reported that legal experts said an adverse ruling for FM, as the officer is identified in court papers, could further limit who can carry firearms in the state.
Robert F. Williams, a law professor at Rutgers University in Camden, said the case could take on national prominence. Citing the two Second Amendment rulings by the US Supreme Court from 2008 and 2010—the Heller and McDonald decisions—in which a right to keep firearms in the home was affirmed, he said, according to The Record, and states are now wrestling with the ramifications.
“These cases take on a national importance, because the federal Constitution now grants that right,” Williams said. “We’re embarking on what may be a generation of litigation on the details of gun control.”
