Welcome to the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont & Associates's Legal & Business Blog. The firm has built a solid reputation for delivering creative, effective and valuable solutions to our clients' legal and business issues. We combine "big firm" knowledge and sophistication with the responsiveness and focus of a boutique firm. ​

Thursday, November 7, 2013

The Right to Bear Arms… Well, Sometimes

By: Peter J. Lamont, Esq.
New Jersey Business and Personal Law Attorney
Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont

The debate over gun control and gun safety has been raging for years. We’ve seen the tragic outcome that gun violence can have through Columbine, Sandy Hook, and most recently at the Garden State Plaza mall in New Jersey. Fortunately, this past Monday's shooting incident, at the Garden State Plaza mall, resulted in no injuries or deaths, aside from the suicide of the shooter.

While there are arguments both for and against gun control, one thing is clear,  the right to bear arms, which is afforded to us under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does have limitations which are highlighted in a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case.

In the Matter of the Appeal of Garabo From the Denial for New Jersey Firearms Purchasers I.D. Card and Permit to Carry a Handgun, Louis Garabo appealed a Law Division order which prohibited him from obtaining the I.D. card due to the fact that his son, who resides at the residence, is a convicted criminal. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s order and stated that “its within the public interest to prevent individuals with criminal convictions access to firearms.”

Many pro-gun activists have criticized the decision arguing that Louis Garabo, who has a perfectly clean record, should not be prevented from obtaining the fire arms permit. They view this as a violation of his Constitutional rights. However, the key factor in analyzing the court’s decision is the language “access to firearms.” The decision essentially revolves around the fact that Mr. Garabo intended on keeping the firearm at the same home that his son resides in. this arguably provides the son “access” to a firearm.

I believe that if his son did not live with him or if he planned on housing the firearm at another location, Mr. Garabo would’ve been provided the firearms purchasers I.D. card. Therefore, one could argue that Mr. Garabo’s rights were not impeded upon or violated. In theory, he will be permitted to obtain the purchasers I.D. so long as his son does not have “access” to the firearm.

If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...