Administration defends new gun law
The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.
The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that asseses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.
Guns.com, for one, published an article last Tuesday on the new law, quoting gun right activists disdain who called the new CNMI law as a “naked attempt to circumvent” the federal court ruling that struck down the hand gun ban
“Government cannot tax a constitutional right out of existence,” UCLA professor of Law Adam Winkler said in Guns.com article. “I expect this tax to be struck down quickly.”
The article also stated that gun rights advocates who backed the lawsuit that struck down the Commonwealth’s ban on handguns “are gearing up for action.”
“We expected the Governor to sign it,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said in the article.
“Our SAF legal team is working on the next step. It seems that the anti-gun rights politicians never learn,” Gottieb added.
In a statement, the Torres administration said the new law, the Special Act for Firearms Enforcement, or SAFE Act, is intended to regulated the possession of firearms in the Commonwealth, including “several provisions to ensure the prevention of and the proliferation and misuse of firearms in the CNMI. “
“The Commonwealth has enjoyed a peaceful society through the unique treaty under the Covenant with the United States for 40 some years,” the administration said. “It is the law’s intent that the possession and use of handguns will be for self-defense and not for the indiscriminate use to harm human life or to intimidate.
“We have seen many cases of illegal gun possession and use,” the administration added, “which have needlessly harmed human life. In such instances, government officials and families of victims often call for stricter gun rules to prevent further loss of life.
“The CNMI is taking pre-emptive steps to safeguard our community. It is envisioned that perhaps, CNMI’s PL 19-42 can be a role model for other areas seeking stricter gun rules and safer communities,” it added.
On March 28, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona ruled that the CNMI’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional.
Just like with cigarette and alcohol taxes, the gun tax is easily justified when compared to the increased cost in public services that handgun owners are forcing on the community. Things like bullet-proof vests, emergency services, signage, public outreach, and the increase in medical and burial costs to police officers and others killed in the line of duty by handgun owners. When the “Radich” killings and murders begin (the handgun killings that we will see as a result of Radich’s selfish move to force handguns on our community) we will all have to give up other public services to pay for the consequences. A thousand dollars per handgun won’t even come close to those costs.
The right to destroy your mind and body is not a constitutional right. This tax is discrimination against the poor and creates an unnecessary unconstitutional hardship. What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” did you fail; to grasp? It is not a hard concept to understand.
The right to tax is not unlimited.
Bullcrap. I was going to elaborate, but I don’t need to. Your criminals (HELLO: “CRIMINALS!!!”) increase your flipping costs. End of argument.
CNMI residents still have the right to bear arms. Shouldn’t we also have the right to choose what kind of weapons we bear. A gun to an islander is a function of life. It is a tool to slaughter livestock or hunt game in the jungle. A handgun’s function is vastly different. It is made for one purpose: to put a projectile into human flesh. How are we violating constitutional law by limiting the type of weapon we carry. We are still permitted to own guns, just not handguns. The introduction and sale of handguns in larger supply makes our communities absolutely unsafe. Handguns are concealable. A child could easily pack one in his pocket or backpack. All the assurances of gun proponents that attempt to ameliorate our concerns fail to prove that any government imposed controls on handguns will keep them out of children’s hands or criminals’ hands. The fact is that no matter what we do to try to stem the tide of illegal handgun ownership, handguns will inevitably end up in the wrong hands. And what do we do when that happens. What do we do when we lay the first child to rest, because make no mistake it will be our children to pay the first price for the introduction of handguns. The only thing that has kept handguns out of children’s hands has been a lack of supply. Legalizing handgun sale removes that last safeguard and opens the floodgate… or should we say bloodgate. If we are to be truly free as the constitution intended, we should be free to choose to limit the type of arms we bear.
In fact, the Constitution does allow you – as an individual – to determine the type of arm you wish to bear or not bear. What it does not allow, is for you to make that determination for your neighbor.
you are sadly mistaken..every one is entitled to their own self defense, the second amendment says..shall not be infringed..gun controls protect criminals, not victims..the top 50 cities with the highest crime rates have strict gun controls…whats the overall crime rate in the marianas? apparently they dont want us to know..the Virgin Islands have the highest per capita murder rate and the strictest controls..
“The introduction and sale of handguns in larger supply makes our communities absolutely unsafe.”
Which explains, in liberal “minds”, why violent crime has been falling as concealed and open carry has spread.
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
Take your “law” and stuff it, Governor! Only rich people have the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment? Your “law” will be overturned faster than an idiot like you can be voted out of office. Say “Hi” to all your armed guards for me.
Seems that your perfect little island loves the idea from the whole two commenters below. Go ahead then and punish your legitimate citizens for the few crimes committed by criminals who carry illegal weapons that no 1000 dollar tax was ever payed on. Keep drinking that Brady / Bloomberg KoolAid and pretending such a tax isn’t an infringement too.
It is indeed our island and we do not care for your weaponry. No flood of comments from mainlanders will change that.
Either you are part of the US or your are not. You live under the Constitution or you do not. This is a settled question. You don’t get to ban the ownership of arms. You also don’t get to tax them to the point that they are not available to ordinary citizens. See Also: Poll Tax.
We don’t want them.
Who’s “We”?
Everyone but you, big boy. Look, you and your outsider buddies are going to kill our island with these guns. You really do not count. The 2nd Amendment was created for the mainland, not for the CNMI. Don’t force this on us. If you want to own a gun, move to the mainland.
You need to be honest with the people of the Commonwealth and admit the only reason you’re pushing for this is so you can open a gun store in the Marianas. I understand why the NRA is bankrolling this case but it’s a farce because you’re only in it for your own greedy ambitions.
I didn’t know Kim Jong Un was moonlighting as governor of the CNMI!
Lame.
a thousand bucks?..this prevents the poor from protecting them-selves and their family, the rich have their own armed body guards, why should the wealthy have the exclusive to be protected but the poor is not?
Why do we need them at all? We don’t and we’re asking our lawmakers for solutions to the crisis being brought by these mainlanders.
Another tyrant to depose!
To be fair, he probably doesn’t qualify as The Constitution is VERY careful in its’ limitation of this charge (Article3 Section 3) because this charge was used to destroy anyone whom the Crown dis-favored. There may be some criminality but probably not treason.
A Short History of American Gun Control Laws:
Colonial America Gun Laws: . . . No Guns for Indians (Native Americans)
Old South Gun Laws: . . No Guns for “Negroes” (African-Americans)
New York Gun Laws (Sullivan Act): . . . No Guns for Italian Immigrants – in 1911.
Interesting that African-Americans had gun rights until the KKK removed them
(All American males 17 and over were/are defined as “the militia” See: 10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes)
So you think our people will believe this is oppression? We’re asking our leaders to keep handguns out of the CNMI. #knowyourroom
You’re making too much sense… that’s not sarcasm, it’s praise.
This is the same rationale used by certain European… oh, never mind.
The OAG just got sued for over $100,000 in attorneys fees that they refuse to pay.
seemingly, uncontrolled and continued gun violence. might as well adopt the western era open carry.
Infringed – has nothing to do with taxing/regulating of owning a pistol. If your budget prevents you from getting a 44 mag then get a 22 rifle. For safety and accountability, pistol registration should be done every 6 month with reasonable fees.
I believe that the constitution was inspired or created from history but, history 200 some years ago is different from today’s society. I believe the US constitution is vague in some aspect of the bill of rights. Statistics here on the CNMI is different from the US mainland in terms of hand gun violence. Fatalities here caused by hand guns are usually suicide 95% and 5% homicide. Imagine increasing the amount of handguns 500 to 1000% fold?!?. Hmmm… I prefer a burglarized house then be shot at by a random drive by or while i’m being robbed. Regulating these type of guns is not an infringement. okay for the sake of being unconstitutional towards poor people, lower the tax but handgun registration is quarterly with fees. again that is for safety and accountability.
Second Amendment – an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state militia.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights
We never had civil war. Our Government never stepped on our neck so, we don’t need a well regulated militia to be created by our civilians. we were never oppressed or abused but, during the Spanish, Japanese, and now….looking to be from our US selves. the 2nd amendment does not need be applied here because there is no reason, according to its purpose in its history.
Burglaries here are isolated not common. maybe 2 household a year.
AWDW with severe injury or death is 1 in 5 years maybe.
Heat of passion assaults with severe injuries/death same as AWDW.
Now, imagine the outcome of such crimes with a handgun?
With respect to victims of the past, the weight of such statistics is far less to create future issues of Handgun crimes to our community as a whole. Don’t get me wrong but, the 2nd amendment is great for its reasons but not for a country that never had the reason for it in the first place.
I would have paid that tax so your mother could have made a better decision about your future.
You must think we care what you mainlanders think about us.
You didn’t free us, you just took us.