1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 26, 2022 3 hours ago, CMJeepster said: Throws their shit right back in their faces. NICE!!! i'd be interested in hearing how they responded to this guy....he was spot on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,922 Posted October 26, 2022 14 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: i'd be interested in hearing how they responded to this guy....he was spot on. They will ignore him, the same as they do all the rest of us peons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted October 26, 2022 25 minutes ago, YankeeSC said: FIFY. They don’t care or respect the 2nd. But they seem to “ allow” exceptions like a female domestic violence victim who has direct threats and a history despite having an order of protection —- its the emotional argument that has any effect on them and not logic. They want to give responsibility for their self protection to others and thereby force everyone else to. They don’t trust people with firearms because they either they don’t trust themselves or they are going to break this law or any law anyway, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bushmaster1313 61 Posted October 26, 2022 On 10/25/2022 at 1:03 PM, Mike77 said:As explained, even if it is passed, the TRO and suits will keep it null & void until this is dropped in courts. ^^^I believe this is incorrect. If the law passes it can and will be enforced. The probability of a quick TRO exists but it is small. It is possible that none of it will by declared invalid by a court for many years. Remember, until a court with jurisdiction over New Jersey invalidates a part of the law that you want to disobey: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 26, 2022 wellll....uuummm.......the scotus already DID invalidate the law with the bruen decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kc17 622 Posted October 26, 2022 Yes, and NY passed their laws, and one judge quickly issued an injunction, then an appellate court quickly over turned his decision and the laws went into effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 26, 2022 Whoever thought the anti gunners wouldn't try ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they could to undermine the SCOTUS Bruen decision hasn't been paying attention at all... The truth is that this is going to be an ongoing fight untill politicians and anti-gunners are personally held accountable for civil rights violations. Untill than this will NEVER CHANGE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 26, 2022 8 minutes ago, nooch450 said: untill politicians and anti-gunners are personally held accountable for civil rights violations. Untill than this will NEVER CHANGE. this is the important part. i don't know how we do it......maybe someone has to have the balls to sue the snot out of one of these nutters personally and professionally.........but that is what has to happen. no, vote them out doesn't work. if it did, we wouldn't be in this mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 26, 2022 7 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: this is the important part. i don't know how we do it......maybe someone has to have the balls to sue the snot out of one of these nutters personally and professionally.........but that is what has to happen. no, vote them out doesn't work. if it did, we wouldn't be in this mess. According to the lawyers the New Jersey legislator has written itself exempt from personal liability due to the laws they pass... However in my opinion they are not exempt from federal civil rights lawsuits. There are federal civil rights statues on the books that I believe can be enforced against politicians. -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law See link here: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes#:~:text=Title 18%2C U.S.C.%2C Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights&text=It further makes it unlawful,of any rights so secured. For some reason 2a groups never pursue this angle... I would love to see it attempted. In my opinion this is the ONLY way there civil rights violations will be reduced. Without personal accountability there is absolutely no reason for them to stop. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,748 Posted October 26, 2022 7 minutes ago, nooch450 said: According to the lawyers the New Jersey legislator has written itself exempt from personal liability due to the laws they pass... However in my opinion they are not exempt from federal civil rights lawsuits. There are federal civil rights statues on the books that I believe can be enforced against politicians. -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law See link here: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes#:~:text=Title 18%2C U.S.C.%2C Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights&text=It further makes it unlawful,of any rights so secured. For some reason 2a groups never pursue this angle... I would love to see it attempted. In my opinion this is the ONLY way there civil rights violations will be reduced. Without personal accountability there is absolutely no reason for them to stop. THIS is a great thought and would get their attention. In a big way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galapoola 102 Posted October 26, 2022 29 minutes ago, nooch450 said: According to the lawyers the New Jersey legislator has written itself exempt from personal liability due to the laws they pass... However in my opinion they are not exempt from federal civil rights lawsuits. There are federal civil rights statues on the books that I believe can be enforced against politicians. -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law See link here: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes#:~:text=Title 18%2C U.S.C.%2C Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights&text=It further makes it unlawful,of any rights so secured. For some reason 2a groups never pursue this angle... I would love to see it attempted. In my opinion this is the ONLY way there civil rights violations will be reduced. Without personal accountability there is absolutely no reason for them to stop. Scott Bach has alluded to suing some if these guys personally so there must be something he’s working on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 26, 2022 2 minutes ago, galapoola said: Scott Bach has alluded to suing some if these guys personally so there must be something he’s working on. Let's hope so. I feel as if this is the ONLY way these attacks on our civil rights will slow down. I'm doubtful that they will ever completely stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 26, 2022 that's what has to happen. i'm surprised ian smith(the attillas gym guy) hasn't gone after any of them personally and professionally because of what they did to him and his business partner. plenty of possibilities there. and after all......they can lock us up if we unknowingly violate any of their illegal laws, and to me that leaves them liable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,748 Posted October 26, 2022 Nothing would make me smile more than having the NJ asshats sued personally in Federal court and held accountable for violating your civil rights. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted October 26, 2022 2 hours ago, nooch450 said: According to the lawyers the New Jersey legislator has written itself exempt from personal liability due to the laws they pass... However in my opinion they are not exempt from federal civil rights lawsuits. There are federal civil rights statues on the books that I believe can be enforced against politicians. -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights -Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law See link here: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes#:~:text=Title 18%2C U.S.C.%2C Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights&text=It further makes it unlawful,of any rights so secured. For some reason 2a groups never pursue this angle... I would love to see it attempted. In my opinion this is the ONLY way there civil rights violations will be reduced. Without personal accountability there is absolutely no reason for them to stop. Lawmakers have qualified immunity in what laws they pass. The person who’s rights are violated gets to sue the person or entities that actually enforce it. It’s comes from common law and is in the constitution at the federal level. “section 6 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Then it’s recognized in that states are separate sovereignties. And have similar powers and protections . It’s in the common law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigGuns 262 Posted October 26, 2022 44 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said: Nothing would make me smile more than having the NJ asshats sued personally in Federal court and held accountable for violating your civil rights. Suing these lawmakers takes tons of money and a lot of time. Will take years. Guys need to think out of the box to stop it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,748 Posted October 26, 2022 Is there a conservative PAC that could donate to a cause such as this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 26, 2022 5 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said: Lawmakers have qualified immunity in what laws they pass. The person who’s rights are violated gets to sue the person or entities that actually enforce it. It’s comes from common law and is in the constitution at the federal level. Then it’s recognized in that states are separate sovereignties. From what I understand qualified immunity only goes so far... Their protection is in fact there but is limited at some point. For example Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution says "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." A felony offence is considered "a crime of high seriousness" meaning not a misdemeanor. Depriving civil rights from thousands of citizens is extremely serious in my opinion. In fact it can be argued that this type of felony offence is substantially worst than a lot of other examples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 26, 2022 13 minutes ago, BigGuns said: Suing these lawmakers takes tons of money and a lot of time. Will take years. Guys need to think out of the box to stop it. I have spent tons of time thinking about this subject, stopping this type of radical behavior all circles back to the need of personal accountability. I am all open ears if you have other ideas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,922 Posted October 26, 2022 6 minutes ago, nooch450 said: Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution says "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace Would swearing to uphold the constitution and then actively undermining it not count as treason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted October 26, 2022 6 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said: Would swearing to uphold the constitution and then actively undermining it not count as treason? If only it would . Stop thinking logically when it comes to these people and what they get away with. It’s not a double standard but a triple one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted October 26, 2022 49 minutes ago, nooch450 said: From what I understand qualified immunity only goes so far... Their protection is in fact there but is limited at some point. For example Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution says "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." A felony offence is considered "a crime of high seriousness" meaning not a misdemeanor. Depriving civil rights from thousands of citizens is extremely serious in my opinion. In fact it can be argued that this type of felony offence is substantially worst than a lot of other examples. It means a felony as defined when the constitution was made as in , on the floor itself, like when a congressman shot another congressman. What is said or voted on is immune to such action. It’s been court tested . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gleninjersey 2,141 Posted October 27, 2022 At least there's one Republican calling them on this nonsense. It's shocking how many answers the creator of this bill DOESN'T have about their own bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-a2a6n0r5A 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 27, 2022 10 minutes ago, gleninjersey said: At least there's one Republican calling them on this nonsense. It's shocking how many answers the creator of this bill DOESN'T have about their own bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-a2a6n0r5A At this point I would be shocked if this bill didn't come down from Murphys office. Meaning, he can't answer questions about "his bill" because he probably didn't even write it. Also, it's "ironic" that the restrictions that some judges were putting on the permits are so close to alot of the limitations in this bill. Almost like it's all coming from one central place as "recommendations and guidance".... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nooch450 41 Posted October 27, 2022 Today this carry killer bill goes to the full assembly. At a minimum we need to look at what Republicans do not make a great attempt at stopping this. They must be voted out during their next election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,298 Posted October 27, 2022 2 hours ago, nooch450 said: Today this carry killer bill goes to the full assembly. At a minimum we need to look at what Republicans do not make a great attempt at stopping this. They must be voted out during their next election. If folks haven't already, grab the email list of assembly members and senators from the ANJRPC.Org website (https://www.anjrpc.org/page/Contact_legislators) and send your strong objections--ASAP! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 27, 2022 13 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said: Lawmakers have qualified immunity in what laws they pass. The person who’s rights are violated gets to sue the person or entities that actually enforce it. It’s comes from common law and is in the constitution at the federal level. “section 6 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Then it’s recognized in that states are separate sovereignties. And have similar powers and protections . It’s in the common law. isn't going counter to the constitution, and/or ignoring it considered treason?or a felony? it is absolutely a breach of the peace. if that's not, then there's video evidence of what? a half dozen 'rats encouraging violence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 27, 2022 12 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said: It means a felony as defined when the constitution was made as in , on the floor itself, like when a congressman shot another congressman. What is said or voted on is immune to such action. It’s been court tested . so in that instance, they're ok with the meaning as written.....but not when it's inconvenient for them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,263 Posted October 27, 2022 12 hours ago, gleninjersey said: At least there's one Republican calling them on this nonsense. It's shocking how many answers the creator of this bill DOESN'T have about their own bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-a2a6n0r5A he's going too easy on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,812 Posted October 27, 2022 Senate Law and Public Safety Commitee hearing starting imminently. Keep refreshing this page to see when it actually starts: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/live-proceedings Edit - You'll probably want to take any needed blood pressure medication before listening... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites