A man facing charges for allegedly pointing a gun at another man has questioned the constitutionally of the Commonwealth\u2019s Weapons Control Act that \u201ccreates a near-absolute ban on possession of handguns.\u201d<\/p>\n
Attorney Daniel T. Guidotti, counsel for defendant Ji Jing Borja, has asked the Superior Court to dismiss count 3 of the information charging Borja with unlawful possession of a firearm.<\/p>\n
Guidotti argued that the near-absolute ban on handguns under the Commonwealth Weapons Act is facially invalid because it infringes on Second Amendment rights guaranteed to every person on Commonwealth soil.<\/p>\n
According to the information, Borja allegedly possessed a Ruger P89 9mm handgun. He is presently out on bail. His jury trial will start on June 23, 2014, before Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho.<\/p>\n
In the motion to dismiss, Guidotti cited that under U.S. Supreme Court case law, the Commonwealth\u2019s near-absolute ban on handguns is facially unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
Guidotti said the CNMI Weapons Control Act is not mere regulation of possession of handguns but actually bans anyone in the Commonwealth from using \u201cthe most preferred firearm in the nation\u201d to \u201cprotect one\u2019s home and family.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is an invasion of the core fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,\u201d the lawyer pointed out.<\/p>\n
Last year, when attorney Mark Scoggins raised the same issue in a separate case, the Office of the Attorney General dropped the charge of illegal possession of firearm three days before a jury trial.<\/p>\n
Police arrested Borja in January 2012 for allegedly pointing a gun at another man in western Garapan. He was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault, illegal possession of firearm, and disturbing the peace.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A man facing charges for allegedly pointing a gun at another man has questioned the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[257,88,139,648],"class_list":["post-38605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-nmi","tag-superior-court","tag-supreme-court","tag-weapon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}