Chvl67

And for those who haven't seen it-text of his Senate 269 bill. Slim chance in Nanny Jersey, but hopeful we can start electing more like him: http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S269

I got Lance with the redistricting. You can keep that hack Holt-and send him packing ASAP.

I wasn't aware that my District 23 rep was speaking today. I'm proud and honored that he not only supports us, but took time out of his day to communicate with us. Like myself, I encourage others and not just those in our District to drop him a note of thanks. http://doherty.senatenj.com/

Nobody's going to bust my stones when my father in law and I show up outside the State Capital tomorrow in 20 degrees rain/snow wearing fleece caps that happen to be camo will they? We're not coming in full garb to make some kind of silly statement, but if our hats are the most comfortable for the circumstances, that's what we're going with. With that said, if we can somehow attend one of these witch hunt hearings, I'd be going full suit and tie. I do agree one's appearance at those sorts of things and being the center of attention even for that short period if time weighs pretty heavy in others' perceptions of our personalities. People are more apt to give credence to your statements when dressed professionally, right, wrong, or indifferent.

Patriot Oak zeroed right in on exactly what I think we all did: the word ILLEGAL. Good Christ this man is a train wreck. We've got a big problem if this is the best the GOP can do, and it's any wonder they're losing market share in elections.

"I'm too lazy and could care less to even have my staff craft a cogent response on the subject matter, so I'm pointing you to where you can find out my horrid position on gun control-you're lucky I used bandwidth to send you anything".

"high-capacity ammunition clips" What's that? What is the magic number that defines "high capacity", and where is the empirical proof to justify such a number? "semi-automatic assault weapons Notice that the word "semi automatic" has been added to the lexicon--which is the cloak of darkness way of leading people down the path to rid the word "assault" from the statement, and simply use "semi-automatic"

The ironic part is that those who are yelling the loudest for this seem to have absolutely NO CLUE what's involved in actually making that happen.Hell, I guarantee you this same woman has no idea that the 19th amendment which gave her the right to vote was not ratified in every single state at the time of it's vote-Maryland didn't ratify until 1941, Virginia in 1952, worst of all--Mississippi until 1984...

As my friend for many years who moved down there to work at his now defunct NASA job called it: "The Gunshine State"

I posted the same thing last week--it's also posted a few other times in various threads. I almost think it should be made a sticky--it's by far the best presentation on the subject matter, and is smartphone friendly. This was the presentation that finally got my wife to understand the nonsense and fabrications about assault weapons. If only more people who are uneducated about what constitutes an "assault weapon" would actually take the time to view it, instead of simply being afraid of "scary looking guns", they'd actually be shocked--I know a few that I've shown it to were. I've started a new challenge to anyone opposed to "assault weapons", because I'm perfectly willing to listen to their argument, so long as they're willing to listen to mine: Explain in detail, exactly what defines an "assault weapon", without using the words "military style", "weapon of war", or any other of the media buzzwords being driven into peoples' heads. Then explain, using tangible facts and statistics, how your explanation of the definition, and what a ban would truly mean in terms of gun violence. Explain in detail, what defines a "high capacity magazine", and using facts and tangible statistics, how you've arrived at that definition. Explain using the same method what a restriction on that arbitrary number would mean in terms of gun violence. In typical fashion, most of the die-hard antis that I've posed this challenge to simply resort to responding with "yeah, but still, you don't NEED something like that".

No emotion involved--so by extension, it must be a bad idea.Someone's "feelings" might get hurt, or they'll be "offended". And yet, legislators in the SAME STATE, put forth insanity like this. Are people really this dumb? Don't answer that. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/25/missouri-state-lawmaker-proposes-law-requiring-parents-to-notify-childs-school-about-their-guns/

Awesome. I've grown so weary of trying to educate people about the facts-especially when it comes to existing laws. I prefer not to use the term "stupid", and consistently use the term "willfully ignorant"--because I'm not implying that they're dumb (even though they may be) they simply CHOOSE not to educate themselves on the subject matter that they're so passionately against.

Hunterdon is very much a "red" county. Not that I think the R's are a whole lot better than the D's--but at least at the local level, they understand that the government should stay out of peoples' way a lot more than other places.Unfortunately, with all this nonsense going on, I'm regretting buying my house here every single day--If I had any faith that we wouldn't take an absolute beating on trying to sell it, it would be on the market tomorrow. I'm only 3 miles from the Delaware on the NJ side--which if I would have gone a few miles the other way, I "could be trusted" more than here. But given that--we've got 2.5 acres--so not being right on top of my neighbors was a requirement. I suppose it's a little bit of laziness (like my sister, who bought in Middlesex) because people want to be in the middle of everything. I knew full well moving out here that you "don't go out to get stuff, you get stuff when you're out". I'm a good 30 minute round trip to the nearest convenience store. But our taxes are reasonable, by NJ standards. I suppose that's only a matter of time, and there's no way I have ANY intention of retiring in this state.

I doubt it--But that's one of the reasons that out of all the counties in this state--I moved to Hunterdon to be with like minded, REASONABLE legislators. Not every county in NJ is "blue", and the masses need to get that through their heads.But it's this sort of thing that frustrates me: because I keep hearing how there's some substantial difference and justification for gun control in urban areas as opposed to rural ones. I live in a rural area--mostly all farmland. Our zoning requirements for building lots were minimum 2 acres, and have increased to 7. So why I must I be penalized for the criminals who violate the law in the interest of the "greater good". We have a crime control problem, not a gun control problem. Until people are willing to admit that, the record will keep skipping on the same track.

Reporting "fact", and "accuracy" has gone the way of the dodo. Now it's simply about trying to get the "story"out there first, truth be damned.Of course, they cherry picked this lapse of judgement by the hecklers, and provided no good statements made by anyone against proposed legislation. "A tearful mother held the room in rapt attention as she read a statement about her fear that her mentally ill son will hurt someone -- as he had already assaulted his own parents. She explained how her son had been in the care of nine psychiatrists since the age of 7, but needs help in his adult stage of his life. "My message has been consistent. He is capable of violence," she said. "It's been suggested to us to 'let him hit bottom,'" she said, to gasps in the crowd. She said sadly, "Some violence is inevitable." Ok, so how can any reasonable person see that this is NOT A GUN CONTROL ISSUE? This person could just as easily use any other weapon to inflict violence. Are violent acts committed using other methods any less tragic?

Unfortunately, sometimes there are too many that are apathetic to the cause, simply because they think "doesn't affect me".I had a lengthy discussion with my neighbor last week--he hunts occasionally. Yet, he seems to fall into the category of "Just because it's a RIGHT, doesn't mean you NEED to own 25 firearms". My best friend who is a ravenous hunter, also seems apathetic--he doesn't see the "need" for one of those scary "assault weapons". But what he fails to understand is that with some of the proposed legislation, some of the firearms he owns today very well could become illegal for the sport that he so thoroughly enjoys. They're also 2 people who for whatever reason, somehow feel "afraid" of the government--they don't want to draw any attention to themselves in speaking out against what we view as infringements. Which by it's very nature, is the antithesis of what the 2nd amendment stands for. On a better note: I had a very long discussion with one of my quite Liberal colleagues at work yesterday. When Sandy went down, he conceded that gun control is not the immediate solution. He was generally interested in understanding my arguments for possessing a firearm, being allowed to carry one, the insanity of an "assault weapons" ban, and the "high capacity" magazine position. He was receptive to everything I had to say, and like most, was quite ignorant of what NJ, as well as Federal laws are when it comes to firearms. He was also shocked and confused when I told him that SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that Law Enforcement has no direct duty to protect you--their responsibility is to enforce the law, and if they protect you while enforcing said laws, that's a bonus. I told him the story about how the schizo in Oklahoma did in fact obtain his firearms legally, but the mental health reporting that he should not is so broken in OK, that for the entire year of 2012, OK reported to NICS a whopping 3 people. I then told him that while I enjoy firearms as a hobby, and an investment, I truly wished we lived in a world where owning a firearm was not necessary for personal protection, and our government could always be relied upon to serve the citizens, and not themselves. But that's not reality. We can be our own worst enemies sometimes, and people need to wake up to the fact that the 2nd amendment is truly what protects all of the other amendments.

Damn-wish I could attend one of these, and have my wife speak. She was indifferent to my ownership of firearms until recently. Now she's applying for her FID, a P2P, and has taken up the cause to try and educate as many of the ignorant non-gun owners as possible. She too had no idea the concept of what made up an "assault weapon" until I explained it to her, and now she's wildly dismayed she can't own one. Being in healthcare, she's seen firsthand the ruin that is our mental health care system.But I am going to Trenton on Friday, snow or not, and bringing her Dad with me.

S269 is crafted by my Assemblyman, Michael Doherty. See my thread on "Response from District 23".

Thanks Wile E! I suspected much of what you outlined above, but wasn't sure of how the edited text in the bill removed and replaced. Clearly my Assemblyman gets it. If only there were more like him-but this is Hunterdon county, where not much beyond Clinton resembles a "city".

And then they classify it as an "organization to overthrow the government", and put everyone on a watchlist, and revoke FID's...

Most troubling to me is how the JCPD made a specific point to notify schools in the area that they arrested someone with a "dangerous weapon". Since when is it procedure, and I'd really like to see their frequency of communication whenever someone is arrested in JC with a firearm... It's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better at this rate.

Well, I'm encouraged by 2 out of my 3 Assemblymen taking a position that NJ laws are onerous already, and don't seem to be inclined to support any of the new "43".As far as his "streamline" bill: While it does have some good modifications (such as removing the vague subjective "not in the interest of the public welfare" denial reason, or the carry permit not restricting to a specific firearm) I am not sure how the "justifiable need" language or the Superior Court judge authorization changes much--but I'm optimistic that he's at least trying to chip back away at the huge roadblocks that this horrible state has erected.

More good news from District 23! Response from Asm Doherty: Mark, Thank you for your input on recently proposed gun control legislation. I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I have introduced legislation that would simplify the procedure for securing a permit to carry a handgun in the State of New Jersey, Senate Bill 269. Please be advised that I will certainly give consideration to your comments if this legislation comes before the Senate for a hearing and a vote. Sincerely, Mike Doherty

I hate the "yelling fire" analogy, but love it because its so easy to refute.Let's take the above one step further. Antis claim that firearms are designed to kill-which is patently false. They're designed to shoot a projectile at high velocity. The fact that they MAY be used to kill is irrelevant-because we've got good medalists who didn't kill anyone in their competitions. I'll even make it easy for the leftists who like to use the "a gun must be an extension of your penis". Ok, let's have mature debate without being immature: Both are designed to shoot projectiles. One is bullets(firearms) the other semen or urine.(Penis) Simply by HAVING either a firearm or a penis is guarantees a result leading to either homicide or rape. Both acts are illegal, and attempting to legislate either act via the above prior restraint argument is ludicrous.

”add further requirements that are so onerous as to deprive Appellants of any property interest they may have in the exemptions.” Really? I'd like to see him attempt this process without any outside influence due to his position. "The One Gun Law was not a “complete prohibition” or even a “de facto prohibition.” As a mere “regulation” of those weapons, the One Gun Law was not pre-empted by the federal statute." Again--really? How is it not a de facto prohibition?