A wheelchair-bound, quadriplegic New Jersey man who waged a 2-1/2-year battle to buy a gun has the right to a firearm permit, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Superior Court Judge John Pursel of Somerville, N.J., ruled Wednesday that James Cap, who is physically unable to hold a gun or pull a trigger with his limbs, should be allowed to have a firearm ID card despite the opposition of a local police chief, The (Newark, N.J.) Star-Ledger reported.
"I hope you enjoy the use of your firearm," Pursel told Cap, an avid hunter, before signing an order allowing him to get a permit under the conditions that any guns he buys be stored in a safe and that only qualified people assist him with the weapons.
The newspaper said Cap, 46, puts his firearm in a special wheelchair mount and uses a mechanical device that allows him to aim and fire with breaths through a tube.
He sued the city of Manville, N.J. after its police chief, Mark Peltack, rejected his application. His victory was hailed by the National Rifle Association, which had objected to the chief's denial.
What do you think about this fascinating case? It touches on the very meaning of the 2nd Amendment, doesn't it? The idea that the bearing of arms is only for participation in the militia, certainly doesn't apply. Nor does the individual right to self protection. So, how does this man benefit from the 2nd Amendment exactly? Does it also cover the idea that he just wants to? Is wanting to have a gun enough reason to be entitled to have one,, according to the Constitution?
On the Daily Mirror site, they made specific mention of the right to bear arms.
Cap, of Somerville, New Jersey, had a licence bid rejected by police but a judge upheld his right to bear arms under the US Constitution.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.