Jump to content

Mrs. Peel

Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    136
  • Feedback

    100%

Mrs. Peel last won the day on July 13 2022

Mrs. Peel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,810 Excellent

5 Followers

About Mrs. Peel

  • Rank
    NJGF Cornerstone

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location:
    Hunterdon County
  • Home Range
    SCFGPA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,516 profile views
  1. Sorry, but that's not what I'm seeing... I'm seeing that, yes, Col. has a "bodily limit" above which you can be "charged" with DUI (though I'm seeing 5 nanograms btw?), but it remains controversial because THC is metabolized much, much differently than alcohol, and there doesn't seem to be much direct relationship at all between THC levels in the blood and actual impairment. To complicate things more, for frequent users, much higher levels of THC than that bodily limit can last (yes, even in the blood) for DAYS even if they haven't done the drug in that time. So, although the blood test is one more piece of info a prosecutor can use, it's not the same kind of slam-dunk that an alcohol blood test is. So, apparently, they are still relying MORE on field sobriety tests in court... and researchers continue to search for a better test that would be as accurate as the alcohol blood tests. The entire situation makes these cases VERY difficult to prosecute apparently. If I were a defense attorney and my client was charged with DUI, I'd have a FIELD DAY with this situation! If you have better info, pls send links... I have ZERO medical/legal expertise, so I'm merely relaying what I'm reading. I am always happy to learn something new!
  2. Hmmm? Am I the only one in this thread with real concerns about this? Isn't the part I bolded above an ongoing problem with pot right now, even with driving? My understanding is that unlike alcohol (where there's a pathway for proving guilt by way of a blood alcohol content level that can be measured), it's not so with pot. Someone could have smoked 24 hrs earlier - or - smoked 30 min before they grabbed and used their firearm... but they'd still have THC in their bloodstream without a definitive, measurable way to show whether or not that level of THC made them impaired. (If I'm wrong, I trust someone will come on and correct me). Perhaps roadside sobriety tests (you know those "close your eyes, now touch your nose" tests) carry more weight in a court of law than I'm aware of? Because I would think a good lawyer could make mincemeat out of those roadside tests - "my client was tired after working long hours... he also had a recent inner ear infection... of course, he couldn't walk straight, your honor..." etc. (Isn't that likely why cops follow-up with a breathalyzer or blood test in the first place? To have evidence that is harder to refute in court?). It's bad enough if someone drives (or carries, etc.) when they're drunk... at least you can definitively, measurably prove that... and if nothing else, justice will be served after-the-fact. I just don't see how you can ensure the same result if someone is high. And I hate like hell the thought that some dumbasses will have some "bad shoots" while high, thereby giving our anti-2A opposition MORE ammo to use against us. I just don't see how this is a positive development... besides, I feel like our society is self-medicating at a rate that's growing alarmingly fast. I don't see any of this as a social good.
  3. Just cleaned up a number of extraneous posts... pls get this thread back on track. Thanks.
  4. Stop insulting other posters...! Enough of that. It's inappropriate, against forum rules and frankly, if comes off belligerent and bratty. I'm sure you can do better! And I hope everyone else on here knows they shouldn't be taking rash-sounding legal advice from strangers on the Internet... do I even need to say that? Hopefully not!
  5. @Xtors, it's not a dumb question at all. And, @JackDaWack, with all due respect, I'm not so sure about that advice... what defines the boundaries of a playground from the rest of the park it resides within? How would you know where those boundaries were? Would you need to go to the municipality and pull the latest blueprints on file? Would that even be legally sufficient? Since all of these carry issues - including the playground aspect - will be hashed out and ruled on before too long, why not act out of an abundance of caution? Simply avoid parks with children's playgrounds (that leaves you with plenty of recreational options and you're not risking felony arrest while this combined case works its way through the system). Or at the very least, discuss with an actual attorney. I have a feeling a lot of these answers will be forthcoming soon anyway from a variety of 2A legal presentations, etc. Personally? I'm hoping the whole insurance requirement gets tossed altogether. We don't need mandatory insurance to exercise any of the other amendments, so why for the 2nd? It's ridiculous. It's just a blatant scam by the state to make gun ownership more expensive and onerous.
  6. And now I owe YOU a beer! And thanks for making me spit out my diet Coke.
  7. And thank you @DirtyDigz - for your wonderfully detailed and lightning-fast-out-of-the-gate "informal transcript". Much appreciated by me... and I'm sure by others! Update: He informed us downthread the transcript wasn't his... nonetheless, he's been one (of a handful of you) who've been really great at sharing information on this thread. Depending on how busy the workday is (I'm sure many agree), it's nice that I don't have to go searching multiple websites to get the "gist" of things. And may I say... all of these hearings just sound absolutely DELICIOUS! Nice to be WINNING for a change. Can't wipe the smile off my face.
  8. It's SO different... that I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around it! How sad is that? Been in Joisey too long I guess.
  9. For those too tired to click, lol, their theory is: The move suggests that legislative leaders may not be satisfied with the Attorney General's work, and/or that they have tried and failed to get the Attorney General to make arguments that the AG was not willing to make. Not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty logical. Agree with what @DAHL stated a few posts up... this sounds to me like the wailing and clenched-fist tantrum one would expect from toddlers, not from the heads of state legislative bodies! The AGs office has likely chosen not to embarrass themselves in the courthouse (well, any more than they already have anyway) by going along with this nonsense. These legislators are a JOKE! An embarrassment! And they presume to be speaking "for the public"? Oh, yeah? Really? What about the domestic violence victim who has a creepy ex- who keeps cropping up in her life as an omnipresent threat? Do they represent her? Or the guy whose work (like getting cash out of vending machines) takes him into bad neighborhoods that pose unique risks? Or hell, for that matter, what about the perfectly ordinary NJ residents who face NO "unique" threats at all, but merely read the news, use their critical thinking skills, and realize that CRIME can happen to ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and they'd simply like to have the means to protect themselves that their Constitution guarantees them? Maybe they'd just like to be treated like equal and full U.S. citizens (like their brethren right across the river in PA, for instance)? These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!
  10. Don't let this thread devolve, pls! No insulting other posters, etc. Let's strive to debate like gentlemen and ladies (as politically incorrect as that might sound these days ). Thx! Besides... honestly, it seems these are GOOD DAYS for the 2A in NJ. Why squabble - now of all times? Of course, some of these issues ARE confusing and will take time to iron out. In the meantime, pls be patient. And if you've still got a bit of pent-up energy, here's a suggestion... channel it into writing out some checks to the 2A orgs behind these current cases. Now that they have some real "ammo" (thanks to Bruen), they're leveraging it really well and doing a bang-up job!
  11. Are you referring to winning points with the staff? Because, if so, I think the rules here are pretty simple and reasonable! A certain amount of reasonable venting (with this admittedly frustrating and daunting system) is understandable and no one gets dinged for that. But when frustration levels run so high that a poster... goes on attack mode against other posters, starts making veiled innuendos or threats, or keeps repeating the same pointed question ad nauseum when it's been "asked & answered" multiple times already (thus clogging up the thread), etc. - well, THAT"S when staff gets involved. Basically, you have to act like a stubborn PITA to get your knuckles rapped by a staff member. With rare exceptions, I find that most people here know how to conduct themselves like adults. Carry on!
  12. This is true! I've always said there is a trifecta of trusted professionals that I like to have in my life - someone who knows the law, someone who knows medicine, and someone who knows cars! Fortunately for me, I have all three, including a WONDERFUL auto mechanic who is as honest as the day is long, reasonably priced, expert at diagnostics... and just a sweetheart of a guy. As good as he is, I realize I have to do MY part too... keeping an eye on the mileage, getting it in for regular oil changes, listening/reporting any new sounds, etc. I was really terrible about car maintenance in my late teens/early 20's... I probably could have been in this video ... but you do get older and wiser!
  13. Those of you smarter on the law than me (e.g., pretty much everyone here, lol)...help me understand... I just want to know next steps & timing of those steps (forgive me if I've mangled the legalese): These newly consolidated cases will now go back in front of Judge Bumb... first, to rule on the issue of TRO (and then later, she will also preside over the full consolidated case, is that right?) What happens in a consolidated case? Is it natural that both 2A legal teams will strategize and work together to some degree? Because a TRO is now being requested on the "other" sensitive areas listed in the law (and not just the 5 in the CNJFO case which Bumb already ruled on), isn't there some sense of urgency with TROs? What kind of timing are we talking about here? Is it a set number of days or weeks by which those particular kinds of actions must be heard and ruled on? This should happen pretty quickly, right? In the meantime, the state can still appeal the initial TRO, correct (even if it's a high bar)? How long do they have to do their appeal? Thanks... I'm just trying to get a timeline in my head! (Now that we're winning, I kinda feel that mo' winning can't come fast enough... ! )
  14. OK, I'll do what I can without you! Now that you've ducked out of work, you better bring me some swag from the show.
  15. In the meantime, in related coverage - I think someone mentioned (upthread?) that the Star-Ledger had posted a VERY snarky and incredibly disdainful article about 2A rights in NJ in light of the recent TRO. Link to the editorial here: http://thf-legal.s3.amazonaws.com/Star Ledger 2A Curse Article.pdf Subsequently, the Heritage Foundation has responded directly to that editorial in a fairly blistering way, here:, here: https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-blessing-not-curse-end-year-examples-defensive-gun-use - an enjoyable read! I sure do like the way that various 2A orgs and pro-2A think tanks are REALLY paying attention to New Jersey now! Bruen changed the landscape a lot, didn't it?
×
×
  • Create New...