Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Really....well that's your opinion.....show me where these requirements that you say "aren't really a high bar" are stated in the 2A of The Bill of Rights..........all this concocted crap is in violation of our 2A .......guess you feel it's not......suppose you love the insurance requirement also. IMO, your a prime example why we're in the shape we are here....Liberal Gun Owners....if you even own one.....omo.

LOL.

Nah, I don't have to prove anything to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are currently 25 states with permitless carry and this is what we have to deal with.....we need a new and clear understanding of just what is meant by our 2nd Amendment Right so everyone is on the same page and not second guessing any longer.....hopefully some court judge will finally get to that.......omo.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Extensions to what?

These cases that are against this new bill. How many extensions can the state ask for? Is there a set number before it must go to trail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this works it's way through the courts I continue to contact my state Senator & Assemblyman. Both voted against the new laws and I'm waiting for a reply to the most recent questions i sent the. 

Dear Senator Holzapfel,
The recent passage of A4716 followed by S3214 solely on the strength of Democratic numbers in both houses of the legislature. Will the Republican members, all of whom voted against these bills, stand by without some ethics investigation of those supporters who knowingly and admittedly voted for an unconstitutional law? Where is the outcry about the malfeasance in office and disregard of their oath of office to uphold the U.S and State constitutions. Can the average citizen ever expect to see honorable representation again? 
Thank you for your support of those you represent, and for your consideration of this issue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

I really don't see a problem with Kavanaugh's comments. I think that in NJ and similar states that permitless carry is a pipe dream. Background checks and reasonable training aren't really a high bar. 

depends on who gets to define "reasonable training"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

depends on who gets to define "reasonable training"

Objective standards are allowed under the bruen decision. I think it would be hard for example for them to make us qualify harder than retired cops (who are civilians), for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Training is not a reasonable requirement under the US Constitution....what's next, ya want to limit our speech to so many words per hour...1A.

Actually, it could be. That’s the well regulated militia part. The American citizens are the militia and the well regulated was the training — at least the call up for training or action. Remember the minutemen . It’s in the historical context of Bruen . 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

Objective standards are allowed under the bruen decision. I think it would be hard for example for them to make us qualify harder than retired cops (who are civilians), for example. 

Agreed, the retired cops in NJ qualify at the same standard as active in the RPO program. And it was twice a year at one point. It gets expensive. Once a year of carrying just on LEOSA ( federal law) 

It’s a pain to get sometimes to get that requal in. The places don’t always have a slot when it is convenient and it’s a ticking clock each year to get it done. 
I could see NJ or NY screwing with the requal to keep people from carrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

"Regulated" means alot of different things to a lot of people...."Muster" was regulated, has nothin' to do with training.

Yep. It would be another point of contention but we know where SCOTUS will go with on that issue. And frankly, a little bit of training protects us all. I could teach a revolver ( double action only) in less than an hour in my opinion. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

frankly, a little bit of training protects us all.

I don't have to train to exercise my first Amendment rights, why should I have to train to exercise for the second?

Training is great! I just don't agree with it being mandated!

  • Agree 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I don't have to train to exercise for my first Amendment rights, why should I have to train to exercise for the second?

Training is great! I just don't agree with it being mandated!

I was referring more to the permit. The parade permit to assemble in public . 
But it could be interpreted that “ well regulated” could include training. Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. 
As someone said, I don’t think they can require more training than a police officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated here beginning of the week...First paragraph..............Kavanaugh's fault, why some can't just shut their mouth..

4 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

I was referring more to the permit. The parade permit to assemble in public . 
But it could be interpreted that “ well regulated” could include training. Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. 

and this is your argument to confound us here in NJ vs the 2A......are you kiddin' me....exactly what I meant, our own worst enemies....what's wrong with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike77 said:

Am I reading it correctly, that the wording states a TRO can't be used unless the TRO is trying to stop a law to put ppl at harms way?

Go look at the NY case. The judge threw out the original case for lack of standing because the plaintiffs didn’t say they were going to violate the law. They refilled with plaintiffs who stated they would. The law puts them in harm of being arrested for exercising their rights 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ also says that a TRO is inappropriate because no-one can say whether they will actually arrest anyone for breaking these new restrictions because nobody has been arrested yet. :facepalm:

Surely, if NJ has no intention of enforcing the new restrictions, why did they write them and why are they trying to prevent a TRO to block them?

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain this line, without sarcasm? To me, it reads "you are ok running into Wawa with a gun"

Places where the carrying of a firearm or destructive device is prohibited.

     a.     Except as otherwise provided in this section and in the case of a brief, incidental entry onto property, which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2C:2-11. De minimis infractions
The assignment judge may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct:

a. Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense;

b. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or

c. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The assignment judge shall not dismiss a prosecution under this section without giving the prosecutor notice and an opportunity to be heard. The prosecutor shall have a right to appeal any such dismissal.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:2-11, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

2C:2-11. De minimis infractions
The assignment judge may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct:

a. Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense;

b. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or

c. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The assignment judge shall not dismiss a prosecution under this section without giving the prosecutor notice and an opportunity to be heard. The prosecutor shall have a right to appeal any such dismissal.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:2-11, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

So in other words, when carrying concealed, as you should.... You do not cause harm to others...

I feel like that reads exactly what we do as ccw! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Actually, it could be. That’s the well regulated militia part. The American citizens are the militia and the well regulated was the training — at least the call up for training or action. Remember the minutemen . It’s in the historical context of Bruen . 

i think well regulated at the tmie meant to keep yer stuff in clean good working order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...