Jump to content

Jeff

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    166

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Jeff

  4. Posted

    That being said, I will be there and will speak on the Terrorist Watch list, using various data I have gathered from DHS, etc.

     

    Hey, here's an idea if you haven't already thought of it to make the issues associated with the terrorist watch list approachable to your average person. Make an analogy with the credit bureaus and credit reports. Something like, "You all know the serious issues we have with identity theft, and how difficult it can be to get even the simplest error fixed or removed from your credit report, well imagine how difficult it would be if your name (or a similar variant) was on the terror watch list." And to maybe even drive the point home a little more, "and imagine if, while you were trying to get your credit report fixed, you were not allowed to use your credit card."

  6. Posted

    I understand your argument just fine, I just don't believe it to be valid. And to me it clearly violates the statute I cited. To me it doesn't matter how easily I can dispose of property I legally purchased. Why should that matter? Could we not sell items to foreign countries via eBay if a federal law prohibited it?

     

    This is why (in general) I do not like lawyers. It's perfectly clear. You can't say something is legal on day one when I purchase it, and then claim on day two it is illegal and charge me with a crime.

  9. Posted

    How can they not care?! This was settled in 1798 for God's sake. And this isn't like the whole 2nd Amendment argument where there is discussion of "intent" on the part of the founding fathers. This is settled law. I don't get it. Clearly this would need to be challenged legally. I don't see how you can lose (he said, expecting logic to prevail in NJ, or CA for that matter).

  10. Posted

    Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal (ex post facto or whatever) to make something illegal after it was purchased legally (i.e. no grandfathering)? Has that ever been challenged in court and if not, why not?

     

    Responding to my own post-- okay, so I looked it up:

     

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 states:

    • No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

     

    And ex post facto explained:

    • ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD

    • In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

    • "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."

    How does making 15 round magazines illegal not violate the very first explanation??

  12. Posted

    I also asked them why were there no proposals that punished criminals or set up new laws to protect people from criminals better. This too, caused them pause.

     

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

     

    Very good work. I think this is an important component of what we need to do. Hey, this may be a crazy idea, but what if NJ2AS reached out to some of these anti groups and tried to have a real civil discussion (like everyone says they want) and try to dispel some of their erroneous beliefs that they get from the media?? I nominate at least Frank and millsan1 to represent our side.

  13. Posted

    Didn't Greenwald or whatever numnuts in the assembly make some half-a$$ed explanation about how he 'logically' came up with 10 rounds based on 'evidence' and denied that they would just keep lowering that number arbitrarily? So, that was all a lie then? Gotcha.

     

    Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal (ex post facto or whatever) to make something illegal after it was purchased legally (i.e. no grandfathering)? Has that ever been challenged in court and if not, why not? I am thinking of including that in my letters to Sweeney and Christie. I would say something like, "Would you support legislation that limited cars to 200hp, and require citizens to either sell them out of state or surrender them to the police for no compensation? If not, how can you support this legislation? This is an affront to all Americans and will not be tolerated."

  16. Posted

    Have you ever supported a foreign terrorist organization?

    Do you display photographs in your office of yourself in the company of known foreign terrorists?

    Has an immediate member of your family ever had a restraining order against you?

    Has any immediate member of your family ever been convicted of felony assault and/or repeated DUI?

    Has your father ever been charged with racketeering and had the charges dismissed on a procedural technicality?

    Has any business owned by you or your family been shut down for serving alcohol to minors?

    Despite all of this has the state seen fit to provide you with a no-show law enforcement job and permission to carry a concealed weapon?

     

    If any or all of the above apply, you are qualifed to be the Majority Leader of the Assembly.

     

    Somehow, this needs to be put out there when Cryan is up for re-election.

  18. Posted

    I wasn't able to attend the hearings on the 13th. But even if I was, I probably wouldn't have thought of this. I have a gift for thinking of the right thing to stay long after it would have been helpful. But I've been formulating this in my head ever since that day. I took a page from the Stephen Colbert playbook, like the speech he gave at the press association dinner or breakfast or whatever it was and lampooned W.

     

    Anyway, here it is. Will there be a hearing in the Senate? If so, I'd give this speech, or donate it to someone else who's a good speaker:

     

    =============================================================

     

    April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech-- 32 people murdered by a deranged madman. January 8, 2011, Tucson, AZ-- 6 people murdered by a deranged madman. Friday, July 20, 2012-- Aurora, CO, 12 people murdered by a deranged madman. December 14, 2012, Newtown, CT-- 26 murdered by a deranged madman.

     

    I agree with politicians here in New Jersey and around the country-- enough is enough. Something must be done.

     

    And clearly, the most logical response, the only sane and common-sense response to the atrocities committed by madmen... in other states... is by increasing restrictions on the law-abiding citizens in the state of New Jersey.

     

    Criminals across the country should be on notice. Your rampage will not take place-- New Jersey forbids it. You will not have 30-round magazines-- New Jersey has banned them. You cannot purchase hundreds of rounds of ammunition on the internet-- New Jersey will not allow it. Our laws here in New Jersey will echo throughout the criminal underground in all of America, and thwart their plans for evil. Something must be done.

     

    The constitution is outdated. Those words written centuries ago no longer have resonance in today's modern world. Clearly, the founding fathers erred, using the word 'arms' in the second amendment, when we know for a fact that they meant to write 'muskets'. Constitutional scholars no less formidable than Piers Morgan have told me thus. And who better to school Americans on the meaning of the constitution than a subject of the British crown. Unlike pro-gun fanatics, he comes at this subject objectively, with no preconceived notions, prejudices, knowledge, or experience. It is emotion that matters, not intellect. Style matters, not substance. Common sense matters, not facts. Something must be done.

     

    Addressing the issue of mental health should be our top priority, but that is too hard to tackle. This is America in 2013, not the 1960's. John Kennedy is dead. We will not do things because they are difficult, complex, and expensive. We will do things that are easy, expedient, and ineffectual... because something must be done.

     

    The time for reasoned debate is over, particularly since it never took place. The correct course of action is to enact legislation as quickly as possible. Rushed legislation is the best legislation. The only failure is that New York was first. We have not acted quickly enough.

     

    Something must be done. These laws are something. These laws must be done.

  19. Posted

    I didn't object to what Nora said because I took it as metaphorical. But I'll admit to cringing a bit when I listened to testimony on the 13th and people brought up abortion. If you're losing me with that tactic, how do you think that goes over with others?

     

    Final thought-- other than maybe, maybe saying 'God-given rights', how many times do you think Gura has invoked religion while testifying in court? And I will eat my humble pie if I am completely wrong about that.

  21. Posted

    Nice reaction dude. The whole point was we need to keep religious fervor out of the political conversation, and your reaction is religious fervor telling people they have malfunctions.

     

    Nice, you keep doing that, it will work wonders for us in the long term.

     

    +1000. I gave her the benefit of the doubt suggesting it was metaphorical. We need to be laser-focused on 2A and 2A only.

×
×
  • Create New...