Jump to content

Walkinguf61

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    190

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by Walkinguf61

  1. Posted

    2 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

    GOA filed an emergency request with SCOTUS regarding NY carry…probably coming for NJ too. 
     

    Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added: 

    “We have said it before and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.”   

    https://www.gunowners.org/goa-files-emergency-request-with-scotus-in-ny-concealed-carry-case/

     

    NJ has a better shot— the SCOTUS justice that covers NY is Sotomeyer.

    NJ is Justice Alito.

    But don’t count of it coming anytime soon.

  2. Posted

    3 hours ago, Tunaman said:

    and I really dont care what the PBA reasoning was behind their support of the bill,  but they supported it regardless.  As long as the elites get theirs then screw the rest of us.

    That’s literally the job of the PBA union. Look out for the best interests of their members period. 
    If the democrats offered an exemption for members of NJ forum, the majority would take it then fight the rest of the bill to court . 
    I saw it New York. I saw it in PA. I saw even in NJ. I saw it on the federal level. People got grandfathered in and didn’t fight for the guys who weren’t.

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, Tunaman said:

    Please dont make me do your work for you.  "The President of New Jersey’s PBA, Patrick Colligan submitted a witness slip noting that he, as the president of the NJ State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, is in favor of the bill. Of course advocates for the police and retired police made sure that changes to the bills were made to exclude this class of people from the list of restricted places that the rest of the unwashed masses need to make sure they don’t visit while armed."  Blackmail my ass.

    patcolligan-2022-12-06-at-8.29.36-AM-1024x664.png

    Go look at the committee testimony. He was afraid of Denison ( I misspelled his name). You can see it especially when they disagreed about holsters. 
    Signing that form and endorsing the bill was the price of getting exceptions for their members . 
    You can tell and they even say during the testimony, they spoke about the bill earlier and were going to speak after the hearing.

  4. Posted

    17 hours ago, Tunaman said:

    Specifically the Senators and assemblymen who wrote and voted for this bill.  This bill was also endorsed by the State PBA so I call them out too.  A little reading comprehension goes a long way.  If you didnt write it or support it then I still support you.

    I reread what you wrote . When you say “ state hires”, that usually means employees and not elected officials. 
    And where in the bill does it give these guys who passed the bill the ability to carry with a card by the superintendent? 
    This bill was not sponsored by the state PBA. Their endorsement was hijacked by certain politicians  ( more like blackmail). Go watch the hearings and how they were scared to cross the bill’s sponsor. Exemptions were put in place for their members and that was the price of that “ endorsement “. But that was blackmail.

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Tunaman said:

    The bill also has an entire list of State Hires that need NO permit...only a "card" from the Superintendent".  We pay thes assholes salary and they make laws to exempt only themselves.  I hope they get their asses sued for violating peoples constitutional rights.

    Who are you calling an asshole? You make it appear you are calling people like correction officers and other LE assholes who have nothing to do with this law. “ We pay [your] salary “BS I can respond to now that I am retired. I am more than happy to give people their twenty five cents back if it means they all have to shut up.

    Just because some professions can carry doesn’t mean you should take it out on them . It has the opposite effect of what you want. I’m immune to most of this BS and carry without a NJ permit in NJ. And I still send money to the fight against these laws in NJ. Talk like that makes me want to take my ball and go home. 

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    5 hours ago, samiam said:

    That is so. On the gripping hand, those legislators (as well as Callahan, et al) are (per the catch-all reference in 41:3-1) are arguably guilty of perjury for violating their oaths by merely voting to pass legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional per se. I'd like to see some noise made about that, even if there is little to no chance that any prosecutor will file those criminal charges. Same goes for lawsuits, actually. Promises to sue the living shit out of these people for passing their bullshit law doesn't need to wait until it is passed and signed. The lack of rhetoric on these subjects sadly suggests to me the intention to pursue the kind of behind-closed-doors political horse trading that has failed us so often in the past, in lieu of the open confrontation that I am convinced is needed. If the gloves aren't dropped by our advocates under these extreme circumstances, when would be the appropriate time for that to happen? Under what circumstances would there be a consensus that our advocates are really not up to the job, and need to be replaced? I'm not stating that needs to be done, but I believe that it is not too early to be contemplating those questions. 

    The legislative branch is not liable for any law they propose or pass. The legal liability falls on those who enforce it. It has always been this way.

    A quick question about the insurance part of the bill. Does a general liability umbrella policy satisfy this part of the bill? 

  12. Posted

    5 minutes ago, samiam said:

    Any judge who needs to see this as something more than an attack on the Constitution to rule correctly doesn't deserve his or her position. If that really is the prevailing attitude among judges, we do not have a functioning judicial branch of government, in which case we are hopelessly and permanently fucked. 

    There are a lot judges who disagree with the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Some still think it’s a a collective right as opposed to an individual right. The important thing is that it’s not what SCOTUS said , and they have to overlook their belief and follow the court decision. 

  13. Posted

    3 hours ago, 45Doll said:

    This happened Tuesday, and the judge's opinion seems pretty straightforward. I'm sure Phil has his ear plugs in.

    Court Blocks New York From Restricting Gun Carry on Private Property (freebeacon.com)

    Hopefully enough district judges and appeal courts knock this nonsense down quick and see it as more than a 2nd admendment case but what it really is. An attack on the courts .

  16. Posted

    39 minutes ago, DAHL said:

    From a political insider that I know. Both houses of the legislature and the governor all know the cancel carry bill is unconstitutional. They also know that it will eventually be overturned.  The real reason for the bill is to drag things out another three years so when Murphy leaves the governors office and campaigns for a NJ State senate seat, he can brag in his campaign to the idiots : "Governor Murphy of NJ - enacted strict gun laws that kept guns off the street and made our citizens safe"

    I'll hope hope and pray for a quicker resolution.

    It will backfire. Cuomo did the same thing with the NY SAFE when he was on the short list to run in 2016. The gun control thing doesn’t work in the south and other places.

  19. Posted

    10 minutes ago, DAHL said:

    We know that the cancel Carry bill will be passed by the Senate and go to  Czar Murphys desk for signature. It will immediately go to the courts and should be found to be unconstitutional. The sad part was that there was no push back by any Democrat. Not a single one. These zombies all walk in lockstep to Czar Murphy's tyranny.  This was never about guns it was about CONTROL.

     

    control.jpeg

    It’s typical. If they want any influence, they can’t buck the leadership. And pro-gun democrats in politics are as rare as hen’s teeth now.

  20. Posted

    33 minutes ago, 10X said:

    Still to come, a vote by the state senate.   Calls and emails may help there, maybe not by stopping it, but at least for sending it back for significant changes.   Once past the senate,  it needs the governor's signature, and there is no stopping that, this bill is governor gopher's wet dream.  

    I assume the request for an injunction will be ready to file immediately after bucktooth signs, potentially granting us relief while the court challenge is underway. 

    When is the end of the legislative session for the year?

  21. Posted

    25 minutes ago, RichP said:

    Not a knock on active officers. The union should not be allowed, or should have at least been challenged in their endeavor to get RPOs exempt from the proposed bill. They are essentially creating 2 classes of citizens. A savvy politician would have argued that retired State Police are exempt, but other agencies would be subject to sensitive places. 

    Like what happened in New York? Police officers, active peace officers and retired police are exempt but retired peace officers are not. 
    And a savvy politician would not because it would be a news story how they screwed up not allowing police officers to be exempt. 

    And they are not creating two classes of citizens. That already exists both at the  NJ state level and on the federal level. But that is after giving years of service. Veterans get benefits that mere citizens don’t also. 
    I made a choice to work in a profession that my gun rights would be recognized when I retired. I would have taken a different profession if they weren’t . 
    This is not to say others shouldn’t have their rights recognized too. 
     

  22. Posted

    30 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

    I don't think that is correct.

    https://www.njspba.com/President-Message/Read.aspx?id=4

    This is the state-wide org for the local PBAs.

    I stand corrected. Sort of. You are correct . But if you are a member of a large union , that the upper union leadership don’t necessarily represent the views of some or even most of their members. And I only saw white faces up there. I doubt these particular union leaders truly understand what it’s like to be a cop and live in these urban neighborhoods.
    However, it doesn’t really matter because they got the exemption for their members. That’s is their job . Like a lawyer, their responsibility is solely to their client and not other people’s clients. They were kissing butt to get it and is not necessarily what their members believe . 

  25. Posted

    1 hour ago, RichP said:

    You do realize that there is a  six-figure position waiting for every retiree to provide "security" services. Gotta keep that cash cow.

     

     

    It’s not the police making these laws. And it was only the state troopers unions that testified to the bill. They did it to get exceptions for their members as was their job. Note the urban officers did not testify . 
     

    These lawmakers who made this law don’t give a —— about what cops think. Especially retired cops ad proven by the the 3rd revision to the bill and the one lawmaker harping on the fact that retirees don’t have a legal obligation to the general public. They only put it in for the political optics . Did you see how the bill’s sponsor was arguing over his holster requirement for a retention strap with the police who did testify ? He does not care about the police beyond a political expediency.

     

×
×
  • Create New...