Frank Jack Fiamingo

You are MORE than welcome to sign up at the meeting, and we will look forward to seeing BOTH of you.

It will be good to see you, Bryan. BTW, did you sign up yet? If not, this would be a good time. :-)

As Bryan pointed out, you absolutely can obtain a "non-resident" permit. But that permit has reciprocity with 30 other states (unfortunately *NOT* NJ). You can see the list on our website at www.nj2as.com. Just follow the "detail" links from our NEWS page.

Pro Second Amendment NJ Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll will be the featured speaker at the November 17th meeting of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. The meeting begins at 8:00pm and will be held at the American Legion Post 129 on 2025 Church Road in Toms River. Assemblyman Carroll has agreed to take our questions after his presentation. The meeting is FREE and open to the public. For details, please go to our website at www.nj2as.com. Prior to the meeting, starting at approximately 7:30, we will be conducting a FLORIDA CCW Licensing program. This event is being co-sponsored by "Gun For Hire" Firearms Training Centers. The cost for processing (including photos, fingerprints, application assistance and notary) is $25 for members and $50 for non-members. You can join at the meeting and get both a membership and the processing for $50. We will have everything you need to apply for your Florida permit to carry. Florida has reciprocity with 30 other states. For complete details click here. If you believe in our mission but are unable to come to this meeting, please consider supporting us with a membership or a donation. There is a lot of work still to be done in order to get NJ gun laws changed. DONATE to NJ2AS

SK, yes - that too. tommy - There are impeachment proceedings, but I think that would be a hard sell. Voting them out, and making sure people know WHY you are voting them out, is probably the most effective way. I believe as you do that they have their fingers crossed behind their backs when the swear to uphold the Constitution. It is legitimate for them to TRY to make changes using the process the founders provided for the purpose, but it is NOT OK for them act in ways contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The problem is, as SpecialK so aptly pointed out is, they have been allowed *WAY* too much latitude in "interpreting" just exactly what the spirit, intent, and letter of the Constitution *IS*!

First let me say that Bob's evaluation of my use of the phase "living document" is straight on. I do *NOT* believe it is bendable. The founders established a process by which it can be changed if necessary. The fact that the option has been used so rarely speaks VOLUMES about the quality of the original document as written. Second, I personally do not believe that the American people would be defenseless. You are ignoring the fact that many people in both law enforcement *AND* the military, would fight on the side of the people. Having appropriate defenses would indeed help. Not having *ANY* defenses would HURT.

I am afraid that we are going to have to agree to disagree,SK. Just as it is reasonable to unconditionally support the FIRST Amendment, and still prohibit yelling fire in a crowded room, it is possible to unconditionally support the Second Amendment, even though *REASONABLE* restrictions are allowed. What *ISN'T* reasonable, is a young man sitting in PRISON for 7 years, for moving from Colorado to New Jersey with a couple of 17 round magazines in his possession!!!!!! *THAT* is an abomination! You are correct, the Constitution *IS* a living document, as *I* said previously, but there is a PROCESS already in place for making changes. That process is being ignored in favor of CRIMINALLY INTRUSIVE state and local laws which IGNORE the Constitution, and *DO* infringe upon our rights. If a candidate considers honesty a positive attribute (yeah, I know - good luck with THAT), they cannot raise their hand and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, if they secretly intend to ignore the parts they don't like. What they can do, is agree to unconditionally ABIDE by the spirit and letter of the Constitution (as it stands), WHILE they use the process already in place, to introduce an amendment. Otherwise, they are being dishonest, and in *MY* opinion, we already have enough dishonest politicians, we don't need any more.

Funny - it seems so CLEAR to me. :-)

SK, I think you are confusing unconditional support for a part of the Constitution, as saying support for unconditional weaponry. I do not equate the two. The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional, rather that you HAVE an unconditional right to keep and bear arms - two VERY different things. I think you can see the difference.

I don't think you will get an argument from me. I don't believe I said anything about this being a one issue election, only that you can't be AGAINST the Constitution, and FOR it at the same time. Eventually, you have to make a choice. And besides, the Second Amendment does not *GRANT* the right to keep and bear arms, it is only supposed to PROTECT the already EXISTING right. And forgetting for a minute about protecting oneself from the government, what about the right to self-defense? Do we need any entity to tell us that we have the right to protect ourselves and our families. Of course not. The Second Amendment is there to tell the Government not to do ANYTHING to interfere with that right.. That is about all it says. It seems pretty obvious to me, but the founders knew that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone for all time, so they included it. Smart people!!! :-)

Good points all. Keep in mind, what I am saying here is, you must unconditionally support the Second Amendment as part of the Constitution. I am NOT saying you must support the unconditional use of any weapon under any circumstance. As Braptor pointed out, were we to be under attack by terrorists, or our own government, certain weapons could become appropriate, that otherwise might not. In either case, the SPIRIT of the Second Amendment remains true "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Scott Bach made the excellent point that the Constitution is *NOT* self-enforcing. That means it is a "guide book". We the people STILL have a say in how the Constitution is applied. That is the reason for the three branches of government. That is why we have a Supreme Court. The system is not perfect, but it allows the Constitution to give "structure" to the backbone of the Nation, while at the same time being a living document that gives the backbone the flexibility it needs to react to its environment. HOWEVER, anyone running for office *MUST* be willing to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution IN ITS CURRENT FORM, while working for whatever change they believe the people want. In the end, the PEOPLE get to decide. Of course, this assumes that the system is working as it should. It is our job as citizens to elect the kind of people who will insure that it does. *THAT* is OUR job. Hopefully, we will do a GOOD job tomorrow. Please vote.

SK, in order to raise your hand and swear that you will uphold and defend the Constitution, you must support it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. Nowhere in my statement would I suggest that you don't have the right to try to CHANGE it. But there is a PROCESS for that. If you do NOT intend to support it UNCONDITIONALLY as it currently stands WHILE you are working to change it, then the answer is NO, you would not be fit to hold office. That is one of the things that is MOST wrong with our leadership today. They believe that supporting the Constitution of the UNITED STATES is *OPTIONAL* - it is *NOT*! Don't get the wrong impression, I am not saying that you are wrong in wanting to work to make the changes you believe are necessary. That is most DEFINITELY your right. But please explain to me how someone can make an honest CONTRACT with the citizens of the United States to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution, *IF* they have no intention to actually do so. I honestly believe that this is MORE than just an argument over semantics. When I cast my vote, I shouldn't have to wonder if my choice of Candidate has his fingers crossed behind his/her back. Do you see what I mean? Of course, this is an IDEAL we should strive for, not something I seriously expect to happen in my limited lifetime. :-)

I find it strange that the SECOND Amendment has somehow been relegated to (forgive the obvious pun), "second class" status. Don't you?

Here is a thought. Would anyone have an objection if I said " If a Candidate does not UNCONDITIONALLY support the *FIRST* Amendment, then they do *NOT* support the Constitution, and are unfit for public Office - *PERIOD*!??? I am pretty sure it is the same thing. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, it cannot be ignored.

EXACTLY SK! But currently (and hopefully for all time) the Second Amendment to the Constitution *IS* part of the Bill of Rights. And as long as it is, ANY candidate who refuses to unconditionally support it is effectively saying "I do NOT support the entire Constitution of the U.S. - just the parts *I* approve of." In my opinion, that fact alone makes them unfit to hold Public Office. You may disagree with part of the Constitution. As you noted, you can work to try to CHANGE it. What you CAN'T do is SWEAR to uphold and support the Constitution while ignoring its dictates. Well - you can, but then you are unfit to hold office. IDK it seems simple to me.

Please remember this simple 2A Litmus Test when you vote in November: If a Candidate does not UNCONDITIONALLY support the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, then they do NOT fully support the Constitution - *PERIOD*! Such a person is unfit for Public Office.

+1 - in fact I doubt any rational member here feels that way.

I agree. The police are not the problem. The NJ2AS supports the efforts of the police. There is only so much they can do. A rational carry law would do a lot to deter crime. Let's not make the mistake of blaming the police for a societal problem. They deserve our respect and support. If there is an individual case of abuse, it is no different than any other profession. Deal with the individual. We don't want to paint *ANY* group (except perhaps the anti-gunners :-) ), with a wide brush. I appreciate the service police offers provide, and the risks they endure in the performance of their jobs.

THANK YOU, Mark. That is good information. I will pass it along.

OH NO! Please don't start with the broccoli again. I am still trying to figure out the LAST reference. It must be a "gun" thing.

For anyone interested in getting assistance putting together everything needed to submit your application for a Florida license to carry, the NJ2AS will be co-sponsoring a FL CCW station with Firearms Training Center "Gun for Hire". The station will be available starting at 7:30pm on November 17th, just prior to our monthly meeting. We will have people taking the photos and fingerprints, and we will provide the notary and assistance filling out the application. All this will be provided at a cost of $25 for NJ2AS members, and $50 for non-members. There will be an opportunity to join for those who are interested. You will also need to provide a check in the amount of $117.00 for Florida's licensing fee. For complete instructions, you can visit the NEWS page at http://www.nj2as.com. All Details and training requirements are available there.

HELP!!! Anyone who has been looking for an opportunity to support our efforts to secure your 2A rights in NJ, this is your chance to help. Please go the news page of www.nj2as.com and for the November 17th meeting. Even if you can't attend yourself, you can bring some flyers to your gun club, the range, the local library, your barber shop, etc. You will be surprised to find out how many people and businesses support gun rights. We need your help to promote these meetings.People can't come if they don't know about them. Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll is one of the most important 2A rights leader that we have in NJ. Many people would like to know what he thinks of the current situation in our state. He plans to open the floor to Q&A, so there will be an opportunity to ask your question.

Excellent work, Bob!

Yes... I have become completely dependent on mine. If she ever leaves me, I shall be distraught. :-)