hardlife_nef

The following was written in anger after I was held up at gun point in Paterson after a job interview Thursday morning. IANAL just trying to use lawyerese in the txt. I had thought to clean it up after doing some more research and sending it to state reps. Not that I think it will do any good but perhaps it will get some thinking. Stranger things have happened. Please not that I in no way advocate the breaking of any laws constitutional or otherwise. While I have done some reasearch in writting this note that I am just some uneducated schmo who was pissed at being robbed at gun point so take it for what its worth. Constructive comments and criticisms always welcome. Its cool to just tell me I'm flat out off my rocker. Sorry for the length as I tend to babble. All info was from google as well as state-citizen.org, all mistakes are mine. Unconstitutionality of NJ gun laws The equality and Rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of Right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. To be clear as possible a Right, a COMMON Right, an ABSOLUTE Right, an INALIENABLE Right, and a Right protected by the Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance of these terms by defining their meaning. Right-- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to something out of possession; a power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary Right-- As relates to the person, Rights are absolute or relative; absolute Rights, such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his or her personal liberty; Rights which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32. Right-- A legal Right, a constitutional Right means a Right protected by the law, by the Constitution, but government cannot create the idea of a Right or original Rights; it must acknowledge them .... See: Bouvier s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2916 Absolute Right -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligation, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Inalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the Rights of its Citizen to hold and bear arms. Furthermore, the State has the duty to refrain from interfering with its Citizens Rights and to protect its Citizens Rights and to enforce the claim of its Citizens to it. The United States Supreme Court states: The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Which in turn protects the Second Amendment :A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The State cannot require its Citizens to give up a Right to obtain a privilege. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186: The full significance of the clause law of the land is said by Ruffin, C.J. to be that statutes that would deprive a Citizen of the Rights of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677 It would be foolish for Citizens to exchange a Right for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible a Citizen to do such a thing? Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consentor of any inalienable Right. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Thus, even if a Citizen wanted to do so, they could not give up their Right to keep and bear arms or exchange it for the privilege granted by the State of having a concealed weapons permit. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration. If the State cannot prevent its Citizens from keeping and bearing arms, the State does not have any discretion in the matter and does not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant its Citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms The obligation of the State must be to refrain from prohibiting its Citizens from carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise since the State does not have the Right to do. It is the contention of this Citizen that the only obligation that this Staates Citizen incur when carrying a weapon is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, all Citizen do comply with many Statutes of the General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which Citizens avoid doing damage to others. The Right to keep and bear arms is not a benefit received from the State. It was a Right that attached to all at the moment of birth and cannot be removed by the State. It may be claimed that the Statutes of the General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State, and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents, for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a Right The powers of government under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true intentional purposes. The fundamental Rights of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend Constitutional Rights. The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, and upon every power of government and its agents; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Citizens, whose natural Rights that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people. To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The Right to keep and bear arms is a natural Right. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It plainly and clearly existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of Rights that we have all sworn to uphold, fight, and give our lives for. It is not a Right, therefore, over which the police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental liberty, it is a Right to which the police power is subordinate. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The Right to keep and bear arms have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus, the police power cannot regulate the Citizens Right to carry a weapon. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the owning of carrying of weapons whether concealed or otherwise, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Citizen is denied the ability to carry concealed or otherwise; a fundamental Right of the Citizen has been abrogated. Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966) The abrogation of inalienable Rights by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional. If further proof is needed to show that this States Citizens need not be licensed to carry or purchase a weapon concealed or otherwise, it is provided in the following decisions: A permit fee is a tax. See: Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 So. 257 A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the Federal Constitution. See: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 Since a fee is charged for a concealed weapons permit as well as a Firearms ID card and since one's Right to keep and bear arms is a Right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require its Citizens to be licensed to purchase or carry a weapon. The question now becomes, whether Citizens are required to obey any of the Statutes in the General Statutes? It has been shown that Citizens have a Right to keep and bear arms. So, any Statute that describes gun ownership as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the Right of these Citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which, would have the effect of denying the purchase and or carrying of weapons concealed or otherwise to its Citizens, cannot be applied. Since violation of any Statue in the General Statutes is classified as a misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine and time in jail, and since putting its Citizens in jail because of their carrying a weapon, would be an abrogation of their Right to keep and bear arms, none of the Statutes of the General Statutes apply to these Citizens. These contentions are supported by the Supreme Court of United States. SUI JURIS.

Sigh. Would like to say this is surprising but sadly not. Thanks for the replies.

Tried searching but having no luck. If you win a handgun via a sweepstakes or contest, do you need a ppp to pick it up at the ffl? Assuming you have a fid of course.

If someone has a copy leaked I'm quite sure I know someone who will release it into the wild. Apparently he is legion and should be expected. Last sentence not withstanding I am very serious. Ping me offline and it will see the light.

I'm sure its been asked and answered, but im in a pkace with spotty coverage so search isnt working well. Hope this gets through... Anyway, buddy poses a situation; car is in shop for several days and he would like to take his freshly built ar to the range to see how well he did. The range he goes to is just a 30 min drive which he cant make since car is unavailable, but there is a bus stop directly across the street from range. How to get gun to range? I can't recall off the top of my head anything other than how to transport weapon in pov. Is pov the only acceptable manner to transport in NJ? I know silly question, but in a perverted way I am interested if anyone knows.

Totally not defending the guy, he lied on his form so I have no pity. It just struck a cord I started to type and didn't fully consider starting a topic or just adding a reply. I chose unwisely as I don't want to give the impression of supporting criminal acts. Don't want to hijack thread as it was just a tangential thought.

Not to stir the pot, but how many times shpuld a person have to pay for a crime? A person does his time, supposedly his debt to society is paid, no? Yet for the rest of their lives (unless he/she gets an expungement) they have keep paying for it by the loss of rights (for the religious this must be an issue of god giving and man taking away) and being passed up for jobs they might otherwise be more than qualified for. Having to keep listing it on applications seems like an additional punishment especially whaen their crime might have nothing to do with the job they are applying for. Doesn't seem right. As others have posted not everyone is the same as they were years ago. Not saying I have a solution but the way things are doesn't seem right. I know quite a few people that heve been caught for smoking pot when in college, or even worse actual cigar smokers that were charged with paraphenalia for having a Phillys Blunt in their pocket. Several of the latter were actually smoking one and had several nubs in the ashtray when arrested. My point is that not everyone that has a record is irresponsible nor may have actually done anything. Those that have, have either payed their debt and changed or they are continual violators. I just don't think they should all be lumped together.

Don't forget that US Military surplus can be had at good prices. I wear some Marpat at times, even used desert patern, surprising at how well it blends especially in the fall.

Deer are essentially red-green color blind like some humans. With vision being limited to blue and green colors. So deer likely can distinguish blue from red, but not green from red, or orange from red. So you should be good to go wearing green, red, or orange clothing but blue would likely stick out. Not to mention that for the sake of reuse blue should be avoided during turkey season as should red. edit due to fat fingers

Had goose bumps while reading and and actual tear in my eye at the end. OOh Rah and Semper Fi

It means I served in The Marines. Since there are not former Marines just inactive ones... Well you get the idea. Gyrene is just a term we use kinda like green amphibious monster, leather neck, jarhead...

You could always repaint or coat, being that you are doing a build it would give you the opportunity of making it custom to your needs. Seems that different parts from the same manufacturer from differing lots will have some differences (albeit slight) in color.

sounds good Bob, thanks.

Thank you gentlemen, I've posted question in the laws section

Realistically, what were the odds before? lol

Groan yet another question about getting fpid.... Do a search newb, read the pinned topics. Well I have done those and just need something cleared up. From what I overstand in NJ you have to fill out the state app and the mental health release form. At least thats how I read it. Here is what happened to me today. I went to local PD (UCNJ) to get prints done for CCW for Va and Fla as well as a set for a FBI NCIC check. (Just curious about the process and the format of the search results) As I was leaving I figured I'd save some ink and paper at home and ask for the forms from the city. The officer tells me that I need to come back another day as Mondays is his busiest day of the week. This raised some flags for me as I had just heard him tell a detective while he was doing my prints that he was going on vacation, but would be back next week. I however let it pass and just said that I just needed the forms, which he grudgingly gave to me. I stop off on my way home and get my CCW apps notarized and once home sit down to fill out the NJ app. I notice that there are more forms than I expected which includes besides the cover/instruction sheet, a firearms permit domestic violence disclosure form, authorization waiver to release information form (which also authorizes photocopies to be treated as an original), a firearms applicant questionnaire which asks for the name, dob, ssn and relationship of everyone living in household, the reason you want a permit, if you've ever had a permit before and from where, if you've had firearms training and what kind as well as the 2 state forms. I am then informed by my roommate that had just gotten his permit several weeks before that I also needed a case number as well as a fingerprinting card that needs to be taken to some place in Newark via an appointment costing $60. My question being is this the way it works? I don't overstand the need of an outside contractor doing the prints and background check as my overstanding is that a NCIC check is basically done via a phone call much like the one done when you purchase a firearm. Now my experience in these matters is limited to a previous CCW in Florida and the beginnings a a very involved process in Puerto Rico so forgive my ignorance. I just don't see anywhere in the state laws where this is the process. My main interest is in purchasing my own weapons for hunting and some target shooting, not having to rely on going and using friends weapons. I also realize that it will be almost impossible to obtain a NJ CCW, but I will eventually apply myself if nothing else to get my appeal on record as I have been writting it in advance (I will publish what I have in a couple of weeks on this forum for critique). Any help would be most appreciated, thanks in advance. -nef

New once and alway gyrene member from Union City. Looking forward to learning and sharing with all.