Keith Langer’s Post

How the Supreme Court Gun Verdict Impacts the Rights of NJ Firearm Owners Our nation was built on a bedrock of principles – the right to bear arms chief among them. While the Second Amendment is a frequent subject of debate, a new ruling from the Supreme Court could significantly reshape how these rights are interpreted and enforced. In June of 2024, the Court upheld a federal law that bars individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This landmark decision highlights the Court's evolving approach to balancing historical traditions with contemporary public safety concerns. The ruling has the potential to influence future cases and legislative measures – it's a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussion about gun rights and regulation in America. If you've been charged with a domestic violence restraining order in New Jersey, you need the help of the Lento Law Firm Criminal Defense Team. Call us today. What the Ruling Means for New Jersey Gun Owners The recent Supreme Court ruling has specific implications for gun owners in New Jersey, particularly those who might be subject to domestic violence restraining orders. If you are under a domestic violence restraining order in New Jersey, you will be prohibited from possessing firearms. This aligns with the federal law upheld by the Supreme Court, which means that state authorities will strictly enforce this prohibition. The ruling reinforces the idea that Second Amendment rights can be... https://lnkd.in/eH8mfD8J

We need modern day solutions for gun violence caused by modern day firearms. The Supreme Court's rulings since their 2022 Bruen decision have required gun laws to be based in history, dating back to the time the Constitution was written. This has led to confusion and hundreds of legal challenges to common sense gun laws. Their rulings this session concerning bump stocks and protections for survivors of domestic violence have failed to offer much more clarity on what it means to require gun laws to align with U.S. “history and tradition.” Brady: United Against Gun Violence's legal team works relentlessly to fight for the freedom from gun violence that we all deserve and right now we’re tracking nearly 700 active Second Amendment cases in America. https://lnkd.in/ef8cy64a

Here is a very interesting development that could significantly affect America’s gun psychosis. The Mexican government is doing what the corrupt U.S. Congress has never had the integrity to do, hold gun companies responsible for the death and injuries they cause. I’m not sure most Americans know that the gun makers were uniquely protected from being sued or held responsible the murders, suicides, and injuries their products cause. But the courts have rule Mexico’s suit for $10 billion is not effected by that Congressional protection. There is almost no coverage of this in the media, particularly the television news, but I think this may work, and a judgment of that size would significantly change the murder industry. So potentially excellent good news.

ICYMI — The Supreme Court ruled 'ban on bump stocks' is unlawful! The Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on bump stocks is unlawful. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative judges held that the prohibition misinterpreted the legal definition by applying an old law targeting machine guns to bump stocks. Justice Clarence Thomas stated that bump stocks do not convert a firearm into a machine gun under federal law. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that bump stocks effectively make rifles operate like machine guns. Despite this ruling, bump stocks remain banned in 18 states. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for legislative action to close this loophole permanently. The decision has drawn criticism from gun control advocates, especially in light of the public safety concerns raised by the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where bump stocks were used. Following the Las Vegas shooting, the Trump administration initially banned bump stocks. The NRA, which had supported the ban, now welcomes the recent ruling. The decision underscores the conservative leanings of the Supreme Court, which has consistently supported gun rights. The case centered around whether bump stocks fit the definition of machine guns under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The Court ruled that they did not, asserting that the ATF overstepped its authority. #SupremeCourt #federalban #bumpstocks #gunaccessories #semiautomaticrifles #unlawful #machineguns #JusticeClarenceThomas #federallaw #JusticeSoniaSotomayor #SenateMajorityLeader #ChuckSchumer #legislativeaction #Guncontroladvocates #publicsafety #LasVegasshooting #Trumpadministration #massacre #NRA #NationalFirearmsAct #ATF

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote, rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law banning persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. In its amicus brief in U.S. v. Rahimi, GAGV was the only major gun violence prevention group to argue that the Supreme Court should reverse its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, both of which overturned 200 years of precedent recognizing the Second Amendment’s intended meaning to protect state militias. The Court did not take up GAGV’s call to reverse Heller and Bruen. GAGV President Jonathan Lowy stated: “It is obviously good news that the Supreme Court rejected the notion that domestic abusers have a Constitutional right to firearms. But the fact that such an obvious question was up for debate shows how far the current interpretation of the Second Amendment has strayed from what James Madison intended.   “The Court’s incorrect view that 21st-century gun laws must have some historical precedent makes no sense, especially for a nation that suffers from gun massacres and gun death rates unlike any other comparable country and that exports its gun violence epidemic to countries throughout the region. As Justice Jackson rightly points out, lower courts are concluding that ‘…there is little method to Bruen’s madness.’   “The Second Amendment madness must end. The Court should return the Second Amendment to the meaning that was understood for 200 years and that was intended by the Framers. Returning to the Second Amendment jurisprudence that governed until 2008 would allow the government to carry out its core public safety function and enact common-sense laws that protect all Americans.” 

📢 Big News: Supreme Court to Rule on Mexico’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against U.S. Gunmakers The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a landmark case concerning Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against leading gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Glock. Mexico argues that these companies are responsible for firearms being trafficked to drug cartels, fueling violence in the country. At the heart of the case is a challenge to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived the lawsuit, allowing some claims to move forward. ⚖️ The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for the gun industry and its legal protections. Stay tuned for updates on this important case and the potential impact on gun manufacturers and gun control legislation. https://lnkd.in/g86uQUuH #SupremeCourt #GunManufacturers #Mexico #LegalNews #GunControl #LawAndPolicy

New Jersey Gun Laws New Jersey separates gun laws into two categories. The first is how a firearm can be legally purchased, sold, and registered. The second deals with how violators of these rules can be charged with a crime due to illegal possession. Regardless of the type of firearm that a person wishes to have, they must register the weapon with the state purchaser ID card. The New Jersey Law outlining the requirements for this ID card can be found at NJ Stat 2C:58-3. It is important to remember that there is a presumption that the state will allow people to get this gun permit. There are, however, exceptions to this presumption, and you can find them in the statute. To learn more: https://lnkd.in/di7XEUDB

Will Rahimi Save The Unworkable Bruen? https://lnkd.in/gWQamPrA <a href=""> - Whereas the holding match properly right into a sentence, the Supreme Court’s Bruen resolution wreaked havoc on decrease courts struggling to determine how that sentence was utilized. [T]he court articulated a “textual content, historical past and custom” check for evaluating gun restrictions in future federal circumstances. Beneath this check, gun management measures had been constitutional provided that the federal government might display these restrictions had been “in keeping with the nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation.” That was essentially the most vital aspect of the Bruen case. Granted, there was little readability below Heller and McDonald, Justice Scalia having tossed within the errant paragraph that undermined any coherent studying of the remainder of the opinion. However the “historic custom” check of Bruen took issues from dangerous to worse. Neither the federal government nor judges had been colonial period historians. Simply because there was no legislation enacted limiting firearms again then doesn’t imply there wouldn’t have been had there been an issue in want of decision. And the legal guidelines that did exist had been directed at circumstances, and weapons, then in existence. Issues change. David French, who strongly supported Heller, noticed the issue considerably in a different way. Not solely was the historical past messy, however judicial reliance on founding-era laws suffers from a further conceptual flaw: State legislatures are hardly filled with constitutional students. Then and now, our state legislatures are liable to enact wildly unconstitutional laws. The belief in Bruen is that the identical of us who ratified the Second Modification knew what it meant, and so any legal guidelines they handed had been, by definition, in keeping with the Second Modification’s that means. David isn’t shopping for. Our courts exist partially to examine legislatures after they go astray. The courts don’t depend on legislatures to determine constitutional doctrine. In our divided system of presidency, legislators usually are not tasked with decoding constitutional legislation. Sure, they need to take the Structure under consideration after they draft legal guidelines, however the legal guidelines they draft aren’t precedent. They don’t and mustn’t bind the courts. This can be a “which is to be grasp” drawback, whether or not the legal guidelines again then dictate the parameters of the correct to maintain and bear arms or had been legislatures simply as inclined to check, and exceed, the boundaries of the Structure again then as they’re now? Whereas Justice Thomas, creator of Bruen and lone dissenter in Rahimi, persevered in his slavish reliance on the legal guidelines on the time of ratification as controlling, David characterizes the break of the remainder of the Court ...

Did you know that certain states in the U.S. allow felons to own guns? It's a topic that's been under much debate, especially considering the varying laws across different states. Take California for instance. The state has some of the most stringent gun laws, thanks to the insights shared by a Bay Area gun crimes lawyer. But the question remains - should a felon's right to bear arms be restored after serving their sentence? Would love to hear your thoughts on this. 🤔

Did you catch us on WGBH this week? Coalition CEO Ruth Zakarin spoke about the lifesaving omnibus gun safety law and why we need to protect it from repeal. Excerpt: “While Massachusetts has lower rates of gun violence than other states, it is not zero — and we want to get it to zero,” Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, told GBH News. “We also know that there’s no one single policy that is going to solve the issue of gun violence. It is about strengthening policy. It’s about investing in community based solutions. And we see this law, it’s important in how comprehensive it is and the fact that it really takes a number of different steps to keep our community safer from gun violence.” Read the full piece here: