Alright, let me tell you something that should make every gun owner in New Jersey pay attention. The Firearms Policy Coalition, NRA, and Gun Owners of America just filed for summary judgment to kill the Garden State's ridiculous one-handgun-per-30-days law, and they've got a point that's hard to argue against.
Here's the situation: New Jersey passed this nonsense in 2009, telling legal, background-checked citizens they can only buy one handgun every 30 days. Violate it? We're talking 18 months in prison and $10,000 fines. For what? Buying another gun you're already qualified to own?
What really gets me is the historical argument. The plaintiffs are pointing out - and the state's OWN experts apparently agree - that there is NO founding-era law anything like this. None. Zip. The state's historians had to reach back to gunpowder storage regulations and Native American trade restrictions to find something, anything, to justify this thing. That's not a tradition - that's a stretch.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are showing that the Founders actually EXPECTED people to have multiple pistols. Militia laws from Connecticut to Massachusetts to good old New Jersey required mounted men to carry a "case" of pistols - that's a PAIR. George Washington himself acquired multiple pairs. So much for the "historical tradition" of handgun rationing.
This isn't new territory, either. The Ninth Circuit already smacked down California's nearly identical one-gun-per-month law in Nguyen v. Bonta, calling their historical analogues - get this - not even "historical cousins" to the real thing. And the Third Circuit (that's the one that covers New Jersey) already struck down the state's AR-15 and magazine bans. The handwriting is on the wall.
Now, I run a gun shop. I see customers every week who want to buy a home-defense pistol AND a carry gun, or a competition pistol AND a range toy. They've passed their background checks. They've got their permits. And New Jersey is telling them to wait a month between purchases. It's insulting, it's unconstitutional, and honestly, it's just bad policy that does nothing except inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
The bottom line is this: the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - plural. It doesn't say the government gets to ration them. The burden is on New Jersey to prove this restriction has historical roots, and their own experts are basically admitting they can't. That's a problem for the state, and it's great news for gun owners.
We should know more by December when the motions are heard. But things are looking up.