GFHR #240 ANJRPC's Scott Bach on Guv'na Christie!

[Newtonian 453]

Speaking of governors and high/low bars, this is what Christie said the other day in an interview:

 

“And, quite frankly, if I had the choice now, I’d make New Jersey a state where you could have a shall-issue on conceal and carry,” he said. “Now, our Legislature won’t do that, but what I have done recently is to make sure that we’re making it easier for folks to be able to get a permit in New Jersey because they deserve the right to do that as law-abiding citizens.”

 

Full interview on Hannity: http://bit.ly/1PO7IXe

[jeff47 30]

Justifiable need will never be overturned as long as there is a democratic, anti-gun legislature. Bach has said numerous times that it has already been defined in case law and nothing any Governor can do will change that without the law itself being changed. Bach says this new report opens the door a crack, which to me means in 5 years of litigation if things happen to go our way you could possibly, maybe have a slim shot of being able to carry a gun here legally.

 

I think you suffer from unrealistic expectations. Does it suck? Of course but its been broken since the 60's so you're not going to undo it overnight. Unless you start getting rid of a large number of the most hard core antigun legislators you won't see any meaningful change for months if not years. Every change is going to be a hard fought legal battle in the courts.

[Luso 6]

It's not idealism. I don't subscribe to democracy and legal precedents, like Bach and all these other people do, painfully agonizing every detail and eventuality. What lawsuit can we start? Which politician's ass do we have to kiss today? How can we convince more voters to think like us? This is all a waste of time. I deal in chaos and hypocrisy

 

In 2009 a few punk 20 somethings with no money recorded a few offices of a goliath non profit with unbelievable political power. The president of the United States was an attorney for them, and the country was dominated by a democratic legislature.

 

Months after the videos were released, the content was so damning and controversial, even the president and said congress had to defund it. They had no choice. Never in anyone's wildest dreams would that have happened

 

You can bring any system to its knees. Just make them live up to their own book of rules as Alinsky dictated. My recipe of activism would have carry in NJ yesterday if enough people were in people's faces crying foul of the right things-- again, not guns or rights, but racism and sexism. Think black lives matter, not the constitution. Stop thinking democracy and courts, start thinking the war on women

 

These videos already sparked a flaccid commission that did nothing. What if the commission was proven to be impotent? (Which it is?) as long as Christie has something to lose (a primary soon enough, or future federal appointment) he has to watch his image. Just introduce a little anarchy to it

 

People think too derivatively about these things. Sandra Cunningham and Loretta Weinberg can't have news reporters shoving cameras in their faces asking them why they hate black people or women by victimizing them with our gun laws.

 

If you want to help, start recording your individual departments and get the content to us. The drum beat continues

[CMJeepster 2,777]

...Loretta Weinberg can't have news reporters shoving cameras in their faces asking them why they hate black people or women by victimizing them with our gun laws.

Did she ever comment on Ms. Bowne's death?

[Luso 6]

Did she ever comment on Ms. Bowne's death?

Don't know- but certainly no one has scripted the proper ambush questions and video recording of her. No one thinks in this radical fashion, everyone thinks within the confines of the system and what the next appeal is.

 

If she was getting bombarded all day by black women with cameras demanding she support carry for blacks because they are getting slaughtered by gang violence in record numbers, and it was absolutely incessant, she would have no choice but to confront the horrible PR of that, especially since she represents a very urban district.

 

If people were calling on them to disarm their state police officers protecting them in Trenton at their office, it's again, horrible PR. You highlight and solidify the divide between us and her. She gets protection, we don't. She is high, we are low. If she truly hates guns and carry, she should publicly stand by her convictions and call upon the statehouse to disarm. Anything less is hypocrisy and elitism, but it has to be public , and it has to be on video.

 

The laws would change in a week if everyone was being attacked like this. They wouldn't survive to Election Day. And it didn't take kissing anyone's ass, convincing voters, or getting along with other people while making friends.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

I admire your passion.

[voyager9 3,432]

If she was getting bombarded all day by black women with cameras demanding she support carry for blacks because they are getting slaughtered by gang violence in record numbers, and it was absolutely incessant, she would have no choice but to confront the horrible PR of that, especially since she represents a very urban district.

 

Not disagreeing with the approach. But imagine that in parallel those same black women were applying for CCW and using the prevalent gang violence for justification. Under the new EO they may stand a chance. Then you see the real change of crime dropping in those areas. If they're denied it adds strength to their argument when they confront their "representative".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

I admire your passion.

He has passion. I like it.

Let him draw as much attention to the problem as he can muster.

At the end of the day you need laws to change.

I've been thinking about talkin to my senator, on the record.

 

We got bad, but we also have good.

Justifiable need def bill is introduced every yr. let's give that sponsor air time. And his friends. They may even make more friends.

 

Luso.....

[Luso 6]

Not disagreeing with the approach. But imagine that in parallel those same black women were applying for CCW and using the prevalent gang violence for justification. Under the new EO they may stand a chance. Then you see the real change of crime dropping in those areas. If they're denied it adds strength to their argument when they confront their "representative".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're getting it. It's a lose-lose scenario. Either they get denied and cry racism to Weinberg on video (exactly what I was saying) or they get approved (we win). The you shove the next interest group in her face (take your pick- gays, Hispanics, women ) get in her face on camera, and demand carry for them too- unless she is racist and only supports carry permits for the initial black women

 

It's win win all the way. But there needs to be pressure, not putting a bill in a democratic legislator, sitting back, and hoping it works.

[Luso 6]

He has passion. I like it.

Let him draw as much attention to the problem as he can muster.

At the end of the day you need laws to change.

I've been thinking about talkin to my senator, on the record.

 

We got bad, but we also have good.

Justifiable need def bill is introduced every yr. let's give that sponsor air time. And his friends. They may even make more friends.

 

Luso.....

The law would change. They would be forced to. They can't be seen as anti-black , or whatever group you want to insert.

 

Look at all the attention black lives matter protests get. It's a completely substantless movement. But it's race- and race is today's pulp, the unspoken taboo, the trump card. You throw that in someone's face, you win

 

White police officers are running around with guns, blacks in Newark are getting slaughtered by gang violence with no ability to defend themselves. White judges with carry permits are putting blacks behind bars. White old politicians like Weinberg are supporting the laws that strategically keeps blacks disarmed. You flesh out that narrative on camera. They will have no choice but to eventually sign carry into law against their will.

 

If you do speak with anyone, definitely record , and follow up wth me and I will help edit. Every little bit helps