Insider NJ Reports: Today’s Firearms Ruling Deemed ‘Devastating’ by Platkin
On June 16, 2021, a federal judge in New Jersey issued a ruling that has been deemed “devastating” by Insider NJ columnist Alan J. Steinberg. The ruling, which struck down a state law limiting the number of firearms that an individual can purchase in a month, has been celebrated by gun rights advocates and criticized by gun control advocates.
The law in question, known as the “one-gun-a-month” law, was enacted in New Jersey in 2009. It was designed to prevent the trafficking of firearms by limiting the number of guns that could be purchased by an individual in a 30-day period. The law was challenged by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, which argued that it violated the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp agreed with the gun rights group, stating that the one-gun-a-month law “imposes a severe burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” He also noted that there was no evidence that the law had any impact on reducing gun violence or preventing the illegal trafficking of firearms.
The ruling has been met with mixed reactions. Gun rights advocates see it as a victory for the Second Amendment and individual freedom. They argue that the one-gun-a-month law was an unnecessary restriction on law-abiding citizens who wanted to exercise their right to bear arms.
Gun control advocates, on the other hand, see the ruling as a setback in their efforts to reduce gun violence. They argue that limiting the number of guns that can be purchased in a month is a common-sense measure that can help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
Alan J. Steinberg, a former regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a columnist for Insider NJ, has been particularly critical of the ruling. In a recent column, he called it “devastating” and argued that it would make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms.
Steinberg also criticized the gun rights group that brought the lawsuit, saying that they were more interested in promoting their agenda than in promoting public safety. He called on lawmakers to take action to address the issue of gun violence, rather than relying on the courts to settle the matter.
The debate over gun control and the Second Amendment is likely to continue for years to come. While some see the ruling as a victory for individual freedom, others see it as a setback in the fight against gun violence. Whatever your position on the issue, it is clear that the issue of firearms regulation will remain a contentious one in American politics for the foreseeable future.
