Worth a read - imagine if we had a judge like this in NJ superior court:
Though [Attorney General] Frey concedes that the Constitution makes inviolate a right to keep and bear arms, he asserts that it does not protect the corollary right to acquire arms, which is a curious construction indeed.
Acquiring a firearm is a necessary step in the exercise of keeping and bearing a firearm. Any interpretation to the contrary requires the type of interpretative jui jitsu that would make Kafka blush.
Attorney General Frey quotes liberally from out-of-circuit opinions and decisions, which apparently represent a surprise revival of the textualist judicial tradition from some rather unexpected quarter
There is nothing novel or nefarious about that basic reality that would warrant torturing the concepts of keeping, bearing, or carrying to exclude from their meaning the acquisition or purchase of a firearm
Attorney General Frey also references abjectly prejudicial laws that once banned certain minorities from owning firearms out of a fear of what they might do.
…although members of the public undoubtedly feel that they have a genuine interest in laws curtailing the right to keep and bear arms, their interest is not exclusive and not one that can win out in terms of an interest-balancing exercise by a court that is sworn to uphold the Constitution
Full docket: