AG: NMI ready to defend gun law
Attorney General Edward Manibusan told Gov. Ralph DLG Torres on Friday that his office is ready to defend landmark legislation to regulate the possession of firearms in the Commonwealth when enacted into law, particularly over any legal challenges to a proposed heavy tax on pistols.
At the same time, Office of the Governor spokesman Ivan Blanco said that Torres and Lt. Gov. Victor Hocog would be holding a signing ceremony for the firearm legislation today, Monday, April 11, at 9am at the governor’s conference room to enact into law the Special Act for Firearm Enforcement, or SAFE Act.
The bill was proposed in the wake of a federal court ruling to strike down parts of the CNMI’s gun laws, effectively allowing the permit of handguns in the CNMI for the first time.
The proposed SAFE Act has assault weapons banned, requires trigger locks on firearms; addresses expected increase in firearm violence by establishing new crimes; and creates gun free zones around public and private places.
Manibusan, in a letter to Torres Friday, recommended the passage of the gun control bill and found no legal deficiency with the bill, but highlighted one “serious concern” with the House amendment to impose a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.
“Although taxing jurisdictions are given broad discretionary authority to impose taxes to protect general welfare, I am concerned that the $1,000 tax per pistol may be too excessive and unreasonably infringes on an individual’s fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment,” Manibusan said in his two-page letter Friday. “Nevertheless, should this matter be brought to court, my office is prepared to defend this provision of the bill.
There are several cases involving gun control and the scope of the Second Amendment that are before the federal courts, Manibusan said, including a case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealing “with controls on the carrying of firearms in public places.”
“Indeed, that same issue remains pending in the district court in Murphy v. Deleon Guerrero,” he added, referring to another case challenging NMI’s gun law.
“My office will continue to monitor the case law as these issues move through the federal courts and make recommend changes to Commonwealth law as deemed necessary,” he said.
On Friday, he wrote that the bill will “fill the void” in the regulation of firearm possession because of the federal court’s “nullification of the 40-year ban on handguns.” It will also secure the safety and security of the people by updating gun control laws to address the “reality of gun possession,” in the application of the Second Amendment to the CNMI.
The bill relies heavily on the District Court of Columbia and Illinois, “which have the most restrictive gun control statutes in the nation,” Manibusan also said.
He also noted that his office has worked tirelessly on a section-by-section analysis of the draft bill, which represents and explains the intent of the SAFE act.
The bill passed the Legislature last week and acknowledges the incorporation of this analysis, which cited earlier case law to emphasize that the rights under the Second Amendment are “not unlimited.”
$1000 excise tax? That’s nearly twice the cost of the average pistol. Any reasonable judge will strike this down. It’s clearly an attempt to severely dissuade people from owning firearms, which is unconstitutional. But hey, waste more taxpayer money on defending an unconstitutional law. That seems to be the MO in government these days.
“That the power of taxing it [the Bank of the United States] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied. (p. 431).”
–Chief Justice Marshall, ‘McCulloch v. Maryland’, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Ergo: “the power to tax a constitutional right is the power to destroy that right.”
The “right” here is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – guaranteed to the citizens of the U.S. territory of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So this AG is willing to waste limited resources in court to fight a for an exorbitant “excise tax” that has already been deemed unconstitutional in Fed court in other areas. (many times) among with some other restriction written in this new NMI law.
All the while he has stated he knows this will most likely be challenged.
Why is he allowing the Gov. to sign a law with an unconstitutional act inside it?
This is a typical Fitial type of mentality. Example was the “immigration deal” with the Feds when it was already spelled out in writing from the inception of the covenant.
The lack of mental capabilities by otherwise educated person in certain areas still never ceases to amaze me. You would expect this from other mental incompetent elected not from a past Judge.
The role of the Attorney General is not to substitute his policy preferences for those of the political branches, but to give legal advice, including on litigation risk.
The stated reason for the temporary, one-year $1,000 excise tax is to recover some of the costs of enforcing reasonable handgun regulation, until a fiscal study of those costs can be completed. As you know, the costs of many things in the CNMI are 100% or 200% (or more) higher than on the mainland because of geographic isolation and a limited population base.
A good-faith argument can be made that this temporary excise tax is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The fact that you or I might rate the chance of success at only 33% does not mean it should not be defended. The AG has researched and studied this in depth, unlike you or me, and may have a higher estimate of the likelihood of success. Also, it will become moot in one year, due to the sunset provision.
The anti-federalization lawsuit about immigration was similar. Even though having only a 25% likelihood of winning (Governor’s Legal Counsel Howard Penney Willens may have thought 40%), the economic consequences of federalization were deemed to be so economically devastating to the CNMI and its people that it was considered a fight worth undertaking. Indeed, since that bill was eventually introduced in Congress, most of the consequences predicted by Governor Fitial (or his economist-consultants) have come to pass, to our great dismay. Only with the Saipan casino (which I voted against because of the social consequences and religious considerations) is the CNMI economy making a slight rebound, though the government remains perilously close to insolvency for the usual reasons.
Making such policy decisions is why we elect a governor and legislators. The AG should refuse to defend a law or action only when it is clearly (95+%) unconstitutional or illegal, and when making such arguments in court could be frivolous, and subject the OAG to sanctions.
An example is the use of government resources for campaign events, where former AG Edward Taylor Buckingham III failed to object when he should have, instead apparently condoning it or doing so himself.
Being Attorney General is a thankless job, subject to Monday morning quarterbacking because everyone thinks they know the law, or what the law should be, or what is “fair”, “right”, or “just”. But sometimes we don’t .
And it is Edward Eladio Manibusan who has sworn to uphold that oath of office.