John Willett

Hi guys! Registration for NJ SAFE 2017 opened up earlier this month. Tickets are $20. You can sign up here! The Conference is being held at the Princeton Marriott at Forrestal on September 23rd. It's a great looking venue and probably the most functional space that we will have used to date. I am very proud of the lineup of speakers we are putting together. Many of our favorites from last year will be returning, including Cam Edwards of Cam & Co. on NRATV! He'll be joined by Evan Nappen, Anthony Colandro, Scott Bach and Daniel Schmutter. Also, we have some new speakers who will be joining us, like Jef Henninger. We have more speakers in the hopper that we'll be announcing as we get closer to the event. In addition to the conference we have a line up of great training courses available on September 22nd. They include Firearms and Mental Health taught by Evan Nappen and Dr. Gianni Pirelli, Utah CCW presented by ROC Training, and NJ Self Defense/Citizen Use of Force presented by Justifiable Force Training. If you want to learn more, visit us at NJSafeCon.net

This election will certainly be an uphill battle, but approaching it as though it is already lost would be a mistake.

Me either!!!

We will be in Princeton area. Announcing specific venue details within the next two weeks.

Hi! Wanted to make a quick post that a date has been selected for the next New Jersey SAFE Conference. It is September 23rd! I am very excited for some planned new features of the conference and will be providing more details as we get closer to the event.

It would be great. Hopefully the legislature doesn't get completely overshadowed by governors race. Thanks, its appreciated!

I've been a lurker here for a while, started posting more recently. A agree that defeating only a couple of dems would force most to reconsider their direction on these things, but its hard for any of the organizations to stake their credibility on it. If and when it eventually happens its going to be from outside the orgs, even if the orgs might be willing to support it quietly until it gains momentum. IMO. I've linked to my show or the conference when it's relevant to a particular point. Try to be careful not to spam things, it's easy to do if I'm not careful between the two brands. Haven't been writing 2A content for a while though, mostly the podcast and the conference. There is quite a bit of conference video up on YouTube now for perusing at your leisure. http://beararmsshow.com http://njsafecon.net

The reciprocity bill specifically cites interstate commerce, so it kinda squeaks around the problem of "bear arms" not being properly respected. If they make a carve out to exclude this "regulation" of "commerce" it could certainly open up a can of worms for them. I hate the notion of a federal carry license for a couple of reasons. Though, I don't think I ever saw anyone propose simply adding a federal endorsement to a state's license. Haha.

Best guess from the Heller Decision: b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right—"the people"—to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms." Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, 2792 *2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Cert filed last week for Peruta case with supporting briefs from NRA, a bunch of state governors, and a bunch of 2A organizations. If you like to read: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/ Some amicus briefs aren't listed there yet.

Huge Fan of Gun for Hire Radio and Cam & Company here! Also, would be remiss not to mention my own podcast Bear Arms Show (albeit I am on a little hiatus due to school schedule right now). Also listen to Guns of Hollywood intermittently. For politics I like Ben Shapiro's podcast. Other than that, a few podcasts about podcasting. Apple's Podcast app has been good to me, but have also used Overcast as well.

I have to agree, growing the number of people engaged in shooting is the most important long term goal, IMO. And we are watching it happen. (Thanks in part to some people engaged in this kind of outreach, and in part because shooting is fun in and of itself)

Honorable people don't take money under false pretenses. So we should abandon all the 2A groups, but then, somehow, formulate and execute a strategy to influence the votes of a million people or more. I'm been somewhat disillusioned with "orgs" for the past couple years, but this doesn't make any sense.

Thanks. I've been drowning in schoolwork this quarter, so we've been on a bit of a break. The blog I used to do has been dead for a while. I've been confused with BearingArms.com but that's not me. (I wish it was!).

I guess. But that was a layup after the AG's office conceded the ban was unconstitutional to a public defender. It was a press release lawsuit that I expect NJ2AS would have pursued with or without POS.

Sure you weren't. Not that it matters, and its been said before, there are plenty of federal cases that need to be sorted out. A new federal case from New Jersey right now isn't really that important. I don't expect much to change until we get a flip on SCOTUS, because we need a SCOTUS victory on carry, from any state will do, to overcome the 3rd Circuit ruling. Best case scenario, Trump's nominee puts back to status quo with what we had with Scalia. I take this seriously and expect others who call themselves activists to do the same. I try to help 2A advocates be better informed. I study the news, the laws, the constitutional issues, & the strategy. If I have the opportunity to help other groups or people, I do. You know about some of what I do. But not all. I've done a blog, the podcast & the conference. I've helped other groups with photos or videos. Frankly, the judicial approach is important, but its not all that matters. There are two more branches of government that are still relevant. Not to mention that to make any meaningful change here, and to have it stick, we need to grow the community for which 2A means something. That, to me, is the most important long term goal. Al never provided good answers on strategy because he doesn't give a shit. It was never about the movement, it was all about one permit, and he got it. So he "won"? What did everyone who donated to that case get? A t-shirt? A patch? And now you're here as his message boy or something. This is too rich. And you're blaming it on no money? The POS strategy of calling everyone names didn't bring in tons of cash? You guys kept telling us all you knew how to win and we were just afraid to win, but you would win anyway! I normally don't take pleasure in people's losses, but POS was a scam that deserved to crash.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, the POS lawsuit didn't challenge "justifiable need". How many times have you been wrong this week? Maybe you should bone up on your 2A jurisprudence instead of copy-pasting other people's jokes. Speaking of which, it wasn't funny the first time, and isn't funny now. At least be clever in some way. Tell him thanks for proving me right, again. I always enjoy that.

So what happened guys?

Hahaha. By that logic any failed effort was never worth beginning. In comparison to the original subject of this thread, it was a wild success in the simple fact they maintained standing.

According to whom?

Gura and Jensen, who do much work for SAF, were the attorney's for the Drake case at the 3rd Circuit and SCOTUS, not Bach and Nappen. So the guy who argued Heller & McDonald screwed it all up? I know that this stuff is hard to keep track of and follow in detail, but its hard to assign credibility to the opinions of people who don't get the basic facts right.

McDonald didn't force Illinois to allow carry, that was Moore vs Madigan. It was decided at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, so while its not binding here, a clean ruling against carry would create a true split between the circuits.

As a practical matter, I think national reciprocity has a shorter time-frame than a court ruling JN unconstitutional. To your point, if New Jersey is forced to recognize other state's permits, the only responses it has are to eliminate carry altogether (forming the basis for a much cleaner challenge) or try to ban carry in as many specific spaces as possible. A ruling against JN has a wider array of outcomes. Most likely, in my opinion, the legislature dreams up some new standard or creates some insane certification requirements. Least likely, they realize the error of their ways and honor their oaths by respecting our rights. That's not to say that I think national reciprocity is a done deal, it could certainly fail or be altered so as to not help us at all.

Its basically a timeline of the case and when documents were filed, also says that SCOTUS will consider hearing the case on Feb 17

Is this a deal worth making? I mean how much longer will the filibuster last if the dems were to hold a slight majority of the Senate. I think we might be seeing its last days. Nappen had it on the docket for the NJ Supreme Court, but NJ Supremes kicked it to the curb when SCOTUS passed on Drake as I recall.