Jump to content

njJoniGuy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,157

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by njJoniGuy

  2. Posted · Edited by njJoniGuy
    finally complete!

    I'm only on page 23 of the 54 page decision, but this footnote jumped out at me and I wanted to share it here:

    58 Bear in mind that the United States’ theory would likewise allow Congress to add any substances it wishes to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act’s schedule of drugs, and then disarm citizens of their right to possess a firearm based on their use of that substance. Imagine Congress deeming aspirin a Schedule I controlled substance. Having placed aspirin on Schedule I, any user of that substance would be automatically stripped of their Second Amendment right by operation of § 922(g)(3).

    More as I get further into the decision, which so far seems to be very well reasoned.

     

    Page 37:

    It bears repeating that all the United States would have to prove at trial to justify depriving Harrison of his right to possess a firearm is that he is a user of marijuana. But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports. The use of marijuana—which can be bought legally (under state law) at more than 2,000 ordinary store fronts in Oklahoma — is not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act. It is not a “crime of violence.” Nor does it involve “the actual use or threatened use of force.”

     

    That Congress may have passed § 922(g)(3), as the United States suggests, with some vague relation to public safety or “the public interest” does not change this conclusion.  It is not appropriate for a court to “reflexively defer to [a legislative] label when a fundamental right is at stake.” And the use of marijuana does not become a violent, forceful, or threatening act merely because a legislature says that it is.

     

    Conclusion

    None of this is to say that the government cannot play a role in protecting the public from dangerous persons possessing firearms. It can, and it should. For example, if the State of Texas thought that Harrison’s alleged involvement in a shooting demonstrated that Harrison was a danger to the public, it could have demonstrated to a Texas judge—in an individualized proceeding of which Harrison would have been given notice and the opportunity to be heard—that Harrison ought to be jailed while awaiting trial for that shooting. The Constitution, after all, permits pre-trial detention, and such detention would be a highly effective means of furthering the government’s interest in protecting the public from a gun-toting Harrison. But that didn’t happen; Harrison was released pending trial in Texas. And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. For all the reasons given above, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison. Because the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, the Court declines to reach Harrison’s vagueness claim.

    The Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Indictment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

    IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February 2023.

    Patrick R. Wyrick

    United States District Judge

    • Informative 1

  13. Posted

    From behind their semi-paywall:

     

    OPINION

    Are we slouching toward fascism? | Napolitano

    Andrew P. Napolitano

    Special to the USA TODAY Network

    Fascism is a governmental system in which the means of economic production and delivery of services are privately owned but government-controlled. Throughout history — before even getting to its racism and wars — fascism has led to the glorification of the state and the destruction of personal liberty. It is happening here.

    During the past few months, we have learned that the major credit card companies have begun to record transactions at gun shops so as to enable the feds to learn the identity of patrons. These are lawful gun shops selling lawful products to lawful purchasers. The credit card records do not reflect precisely what was purchased — it might have been $2,000 for a gun safe or for gun safety lessons — but they do record the purchase amount and the contact information of the purchaser.

    The problem here comes about when the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives come calling with their so-called National Security Letters in order to find out who is purchasing what. The George W. Bush-championed Patriot Act of 2001 — the most horrific congressional assault on personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized dissent — permits federal agents to bypass the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when they want private records that are in the hands of a custodian.

    These NSLs are really nonjudicial search warrants in which one federal agent has authorized another to seek your records. Since the gun shop purchase consists of the exercise of the natural right to exchange value for a lawful product and since the product purchased is an extension of the natural right to self-defense, the former protected by the Fifth Amendment and the latter by the Second Amendment, there is no lawful reason for the feds to know who has made these purchases.

    More Napolitano:Thanksgiving in America

    Prior to the Patriot Act, if the feds came calling upon the custodian of your records, the custodian informed you of the government’s interest in your records, and you had a reasonable time period to challenge the feds in court. Today — notwithstanding the free speech protections in the First Amendment — it is unlawful for a custodian to inform you that the feds have come calling.

    Thus, the records held by your computer, telecom, financial, health care, utilities and credit card service providers, your physicians and lawyers, may all be accessed without search warrants and without notice to you.

    Under the Constitution, where federal gun registries are not permitted, it is none of the federal government’s business who has purchased what from a gun shop.

    Moreover, since the Supreme Court has characterized the right to self-defense as fundamental, akin to the freedom of speech, there is no more authority under the Constitution for the feds to learn the identity of gun shop patrons than there is for them to learn the identity of bookstore patrons.

    The additional danger here is to the democratic process. These decisions to keep records of sales and make them available to federal agents were made by government bureaucrats and corporate bosses, not by Congress. This is a creeping deterioration of the right to keep and bear arms because the feds are notoriously anti-gun, no matter who is president and no matter what the Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment protects.

    Add to this the new program concocted by Visa whereby it will keep records of credit card purchases in which it will rank the purchased products’ conformity with the green climate change agenda view of carbon emissions, and make those records available to the Treasury Department, and you see a further whittling away of personal privacy.

    It gets worse.

    Last week, Amazon announced a bizarre new partnership with the New York City Police Department whereby if you live in New York City and install Amazon’s Ring service at the front entrance to your apartment — and thus permit Amazon to record the audio and video of all who come and go at your entrance — the NYPD will have real-time access to the same audio and video.

    This is yet another example of law enforcement intruding into private property — the home — without a search warrant, without probable cause of crime and without articulable suspicion.

    The Amazon/NYPD partnership — just like the credit card/BATF partnership and the Visa/Treasury partnership — was never authorized by legislation. All these symbiotic relationships, just like the now well-known Big Tech/Department of Homeland Security partnership producing censorship of speech the government hates and fears, were born by bureaucrats using government carrots and sticks and the acquiescence of gutless corporate chieftains willing to please their government masters.

    The government’s appetite for surveillance is insatiable. Yet, the dual purposes of the Fourth Amendment — by requiring judicial search warrants based on probable cause of crime and specifically describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized — are to keep the government off the peoples’ backs and to compel law enforcement to focus on crimes that have already been committed.

    May the government lawfully engage in fishing expeditions? In a word: NO.

    The secondary purposes of the Fourth Amendment are to prohibit general warrants — not based on probable cause of crime and not specifying the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized — and to require that before the government begins to gather any evidence of crime, it has articulable suspicion about the crime that has been committed and the person or place to be investigated.

    Moreover, articulable suspicion alone — the threshold for commencing all criminal investigations — does not justify any search, seizure or non-public surveillance.

    What we have here is the stealth use by government of private enterprise to do its unconstitutional dirty work, thus far untested in the courts but unconstitutional on its face. What secret favors is the government giving in return?

     

     

    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Informative 2
    • Sad 1

  15. Posted

    If this P.O.S. bill becomes law, it will be illegal to carry at gas stations under 7.a.(19):

     7.    (New section) Places where the carrying of a firearm or destructive device is prohibited.

         a.     Except as otherwise provided in this section and in the case of a brief, incidental entry onto property, which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11, it shall be a crime of the third degree for any person, other than a  person lawfully carrying a firearm within the authorized scope of an exemption set forth in N.J.S.2C:39-6, to knowingly carry a firearm as defined in subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 and a crime of the second degree to knowingly possess a destructive device as defined in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 in any of the following places, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area of:

                (19) a plant or operation that produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one form of energy to another;

    • FacePalm 1

  18. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

    I wonder what the cost per 1000 BTUs is for electricity now, compared to heating oil.  Electric is traditionally the most expensive way to heat, but I wonder what the break point is for it being cheaper than oil.

    Here's the data:

    Current electric (PSEG residential) is $.200476 per KWH delivered

     

    Straight resistance heat (in an Amana PTAC unit):

    230V  3.5KW rating  delivers 12,000 BTU/H

    208V 3.0KW rating delivers 9,900 BTU/H

     

    You do the computations. It's Friday night and I'm fried. 

  22. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

    1666797405794.png.e92f252fc0eb8f491a907e9d2eb573bb.png

     

    My post of almost 10 years ago bears repeating here:

    Posted November 7, 2012

    Longtime resident Lady Liberty, age 236 was struck by a stolen Chevy Volt last night along the interstate. The driver and passengers, illegally in the US from their native countries across the world, then dragged Ms. Liberty into the woods and brutally sodomized her before heading to the local polling place where they registered using the names of Supreme Court justices and voted without being challenged by UN poll watchers.

     

    Authorities found them around the corner, each with a large supply of newly legalized recreational marijuana, getting high. They were taken into custody and released a short time later with a kiss on each cheek and a prepaid gift card for WaWa to handle the munchies.

     

    Ms. Liberty is in extremely critical condition in the Intensive Care Unit, and doctors are very wary of her chances of recovery. A crowd of zombie-like citizens are already gathered at the Liberty residence, preparing to loot it of valuables when she succumbs to her injuries or the Death Panel declares her worthless and pulls the plug.

  23. Posted

    Asm. Joe Danielsen is showing himself to be quite the dictatorial arsehole.

    Maybe he's vying to be Gov. Gopher's running mate in '24?

     

    Edited to add:

    Personal and Career Information

    Education:

    A.S. Middlesex County College (Marketing, Art and Design)

    B.A. Rutgers University (Visual Arts)

    Occupation:

    Owner, Network Blade L.L.C.

    Legislative Service

    •General Assembly 2014-present, Deputy Whip 2020-present

     

    So it appears that he has a degree in Smoke & Mirrors with a concentration in Bullshit.

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...