SAF has filed a new federal lawsuit in New Jersey defending the rights of a lawful gun owner whose firearms were confiscated after police wrongly imputed his spouse’s medical evaluation to him. This case is about one simple principle: Constitutional rights cannot be revoked by association.
… Earlier this year Aliaj’s wife was tended to at a walk-in medical facility for pregnancy-related health concerns. What was supposed to be medical treatment for Aliaj’s wife during a vulnerable time ended up turning into a nightmare when the facility had her wrongfully and involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. In a completely inappropriate and unconstitutional move, the Fort Lee Police Department confiscated Aliaj’s firearms and revoked his firearms identification card. Today, Aliaj filed a lawsuit seeking to regain his property. …
What’s next for this poor guy? Take the cars they own because we can’t have a crazy person driving a car, the knives in the kitchen or how about power tools and /or saws. With our new 3rd Circuit I can only hope they take this to court quickly so it can get to our Fed. District court or the 3rd Circuit and make that idiotic law unconstitutional.
What’s next for this poor guy? Take the cars they own because we can’t have a crazy person driving a car, the knives in the kitchen or how about power tools and /or saws. With our new 3rd Circuit I can only hope they take this to court quickly so it can get to our Fed. District court or the 3rd Circuit and make that idiotic law unconstitutional!
Sorry I messed up it’s already in District Court. Weren’t they already favorable in the Cheeseman case? In any case we would probably get a decisive win the 3rd Circuit.
I think “disarmed by association” is disingenuous. The problem isn’t association, it is proximity.
Just gonna ask a simple question. Should Adam Lanza’s mother been prohibited because of her son’s mental health issues. I ask, because back when it was all hot and fresh, many on the forums said they should never have had guns in the first place, because of the shooter’s mental health history. And, there are two or three others, like the Parkland shooter. The signs were all there, was repeated often.
I’m looking for clarity because one day gun owners are saying gun purchases should have been flagged/prohibited because of mental health issues in the house, and the next day it is suppression of rights and guilt by association.
I believe in due process and that red flag laws and ERPO are not the solution to most problems. For instance, do you take away guns because someone in the house is on a med to deal with OCD tics, or is having been admitted and treated for bi-polar disorder not a red flag. What about a home with a just regular violent adult child living at parents home who has a history of drug abuse and had been arrested 4 times for armed robbery?
Clearly, insane and violent people should not have access to firearms. I think we can all agree on that. So how does a gun owner with a troubled family member safely keep firearms?
In the Lanza case, the mother was in the habit of taking him to the range to shoot. There was no attempt to prevent him having access to firearms. She could not be trusted to keep them away from the prohibited person and she paid with her life.
listening to “washington gun law” william kirk, this sounds like a clear civil right violation as well as NJ’s own laws. can a Bar complaint be lodged against the bergen county prosecutor as well as any attorney who is pushing this to include bergen county’s anti-gun superior court judge who is more likely than not the one behind all of this?
