‘Handguns not protected by Constitution in CNMI’
Handguns are not constitutionally protected in the CNMI because they have never been used by law-abiding citizens for the purpose of self-defense, according to Department of Public Safety Commissioner James C. Deleon Guerrero.
Deleon Guerrero, through the Office of the Attorney General, argue that handguns do not enjoy Second Amendment protection in the CNMI because they have never been possessed or used for self-defense by the people of the Commonwealth.
He said the Second Amendment protects the right to possess handguns in the United States because of their widespread usage by the American people.
Deleon Guerrero offered these arguments in his opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by U.S. Navy Gulf War veteran David J. Radich and his Chinese wife, Li-Rong Radich.
The Radich couple have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the CNMI Weapons Control Act that prohibits all residents from obtaining handguns for self-defense purposes.
The plaintiffs are suing Deleon Guerrero for violation of their right to keep and bear firearms.
In Deleon Guerrero’s opposition, assistant attorney general James Zarones said handguns are given constitutional protection because of their widespread use by the citizens of the states, as explained by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“If the widespread usage of handguns for self-defense justifies their constitutional protection, then it logically follows that the Supreme Court would have denied constitutional protection to handguns if they had never been used by law-abiding citizens for self-protection,” Zarones said.
He said the handgun data compiled by Deleon Guerrero proves what is already known: law-abiding CNMI citizens have never possessed handguns for the purposes of self-defense.
In the previous 32 years, the lawyer said, CNMI citizens registered 914 guns, none of which was a handgun
“Simply put, the data clearly demonstrates that handguns have never been “the most preferred firearm” in the CNMI and the people have never “considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon,” he noted.
On the contrary, Zarones said, CNMI citizens have always “enjoyed a community free of handguns.”
He asserted that the Radich couple does not have standing to challenge the Weapons Control Act because a court’s favorable decision would not redress their alleged injuries.
Zarones pointed out that the plaintiffs have not challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which prohibits the importation of handguns into the CNMI.
Second, Zarones said, the Radich couple has not established that they are entitled to an identification card issued pursuant to the Weapons Control Act.
Third, he said, the couple has not attended and successfully completed the Mandatory Firearm Safety Class, which is required by law prior to the issuance of an identification card.
Zarones also asserted that Li-Rong Radich is not entitled to an identification card because she is not a citizen or U.S. national.
Zarones said the plaintiffs seek to impose upon the Commonwealth an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is directly contrary to the intent of the framers of the Covenant.
He also asserted that the court would not have the authority to issue an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Commonwealth contraband laws because Deleon Guerrero does not have a duty to enforce the law prohibiting the importation of contraband.
The Radich couple have asked the court to prevent Deleon Guerrero from enforcing against them the prohibitions on virtually all CNMI residents from obtaining handguns for self-defense purposes and the provision on obtaining a Weapons Identification Card and possessing a firearm for self-defense purposes; and for good cause requirement for obtaining a WIC.
The couple asked the court to declare that such prohibitions are null and void because they infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Radich was born in California. He is an honorably discharged U.S. Navy veteran who served in the Gulf War. He used to work at a public school on Tinian then moved to Saipan in 2008 to work for an environmental consulting firm. He and Li-Rong have been married since 2009.
According to the complaint, in 2010, while Radich was away and his wife, Li Rong, was at home alone, their home was invaded.
Li-Rong was reportedly attacked and beaten resulting in injuries, including two broken ribs, facial contusions, and a suspected broken orbital bone and eye socket.
Li-Rong screamed out for help and caused the home invader to leave. She eventually recovered physically, but both plaintiffs incurred medical bills for Li-Rong’s care.
The couple, through counsel, argued that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
We need stiffer laws, especially punishment for home invasion idiots. I for one will use force and if need, be deadly force. How am I to know that the burglar intends to do. However handguns are not the answer for me.
Nice try. “We’ve prohibited you from owning handguns and accordingly they have never been in widespread use. So obviously they cannot be deemed to be protected by the constitution…” Kinda like saying we’ve never treated women equally, so they obviously don’t have a right to equal protection under the law.
This has got to be the most outlandish “argument” I have ever heard – bar none! He’s using the old “everybody-does-it-so-it-must-be-OK” argument AND he’s even saying that the U.S. Constitution was written under the premise that handguns MIGHT come into practical use LATER on! As for that ridiculous statement regarding how many applications were filed and the fact that NONE of them were for handguns……well, that’s ridiculous also because the application itself states BOLDLY that handguns CANNOT be applied for and “self-defense” is NOT an acceptable reason for the permit!
Looks like this rebuttal argument was written by a grade-schooler, or, AT BEST, a first SEMESTER law student with NO understanding of constitutional law…yet!
That’s USA logic not CNMI tarkle, say why are you here in te CNMI anyway
You’re part of the U.S.A. – like it or not and there is NO separate standard between one part of the U.S.A. and ANY other! It’s not “logic” at work here – it’s the LAW!!!
James, James, James. The Second Amendment applies to the CNMI. It doesn’t matter that the stated justification for the amendment–the need for a well-regulated militia–doesn’t historically apply to the CNMI. Nor does it matter that your lawyer can pick some dicta from a Supreme Court opinion that seems to support avoiding the Second Amendment’s application to the CNMI. The holding of District of Columbia v. Heller was: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” What part of that do you and your lawyer find confusing?
What an asinine flawed argument.
BTW when the US Constitution was drafted the majority of guns were muskets anyway. Long guns. All black powder weapons and were single shot, they were ‘doglocks, matchlocks, wheelocks, then replaced by flintlocks in the 17th century.
Pistols were not the main weapon of self defense choice then, until much later on. Long rifles served multi purposes, primarily for hunting for the masses to feed their families and secondary for self defense. Pistols were also used for personal duals in those early times in the colonies.
“We never had, so therefore there never was, so now there should never be”
Commissioner,
You and I know that hand guns do exist in the CNMI and the DPS had been providing ammunitions to the public in some occasions in the past. Why are you so scared to have semi-automatic rifles and hand guns in the CNMI? Sir, before you start denying us our United States Constitutional rights, stop your department or DPS from instilling fear among us citizens. It seems that your officers favor their druggy friends when it comes to enforcing the law in the CNMI. Through the grapevine or the drug world in the CNMI, DPS personnel are in for the loot relating to the drug trade. Maybe it is best to police your own organization before you start depriving us our constitutional rights.
It does not take a real investigator to understand and know what is going on within your organization. A drug addict would point you in the right direction, unless you are part of it.
Not all CNMI cops are bad. Secondly, are you going to deprive the “innocent” to “life” just so some folks can tote and stroke a firearm to satisfy the feeling of “power” and curiosity? So U.S. have nukes. Should we have them too? Take a look at the handgun death rate in Puerto Rico.
US Constitution does not define us. Lets get busy with economy, finding some way to bring in much needed “thing” to get it going. Lets deal with the domestic violence, alcohol and other drug issues. That would be a safer bet for everyone. Also, I have been working in the federal government for over 18 years. I know that there is a “Separation or limits” (what have you) between the US constitution and its application in US Territories.
The Commissioner makes a strong argument. He might have added, “The Easter Bunny does not carry a handgun, so why should we? Santa Claus carries a weapon but that is mostly to shoot elves who steal candy. There are very few elves in the commonwealth, but we do have candy. A far more appropriate response to a violent attacker is to point your index finger and exclaim,’ Bang! Bang Ka-Pow!'”
While i am not impressed with above argument; I hope we really think this through. Some things are just better left alone.
With all due respect, this is not up to an individual interpretation or what we desire, it will be up to the Federal courts, period. Whether we disagree or agree.
Check out this gun safety ad.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/qKHeXC7L85s?rel=0
Check this out for alternative to guns.
http://www.naturalnews.com/048291_gun-free_schools_child_militias_soup_cans.html
Buenas,
I am not trying to offend you in anyway and I am glad that we are discussing issues affecting us throughout our island chain.
Probably your friend live in a gated community and don’t have a clue on what is going in Stockton. How many times bullets hit the side of our house and my daughters almost got hit by astray bullets in the past. Maybe you should tell your friend to go live around Ponce Deleon and El Dorado or Air Port Way and 8th Street, because he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Oh, we forgot probably he was living in a shelter neighborhood. Or maybe you should do a researched on how bad things are in Stockton, because it came to a point that I don’t want to risk my family further and we had to make a move. In Stockton, you would get kill by looking at another person in a different way or wearing a different color of attire in some neighborhood.
Maybe your friend is living in a fantasy land, because he can afford to isolate himself from the real situation. Maybe your friend did not read the papers, when a person was gun down at El Dorado and Orleans Court several years ago. The poor individual was shot in front of our duplexes. He was running around knocking on doors to seek shelter and no one did helped him. Oh, three blocks away from our residence, they did a home invasion and several people got killed. Or maybe I am not telling the truth, because your friend has different version of Stockton. See articles below to back up my life experience in Stockton, the so call no man’s land.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/stockton-poor-poverty-crime-california_n_1346096.html
http://sfist.com/2012/10/19/oakland_stockton_make_forbes_most_v.php
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/california/stockton.html
http://archive.news10.net/news/article/143345/2/Stockton-has-11-violent-crimes-in-one-night
http://www.stockton2020.org/2009/06/17/stocktons-crime-rate-second-in-california/
Please read the full 2nd Amendment, from the beginning, “”A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm?PageSpeed=noscript
Then read the definition of militia:
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out
periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia
It seems to me we already have a “well regulated militia”, and that individual handgun owners, even those who intend only to defend their homes and families, do not constitute a “well regulated militia”.
Most people, even many Supreme Court Justices in the past, forget the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and focus only on “the right to bear arms”. Why? A strong bias for guns, I guess.
I am strongly against handguns being legalized here, but if they are, I will be the first one to buy one, get trained, and open carry.