Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

no sir.........under the Militia Act, each individual was supposed to be fitted out with a good musket, cartridge box and cuttoe / knie or ax.....had nothing to do with training.....stop making up crap you haven't researched.....your a nightmare to our cause.....omo.

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


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

no sir.........under the Militia Act, each individual was supposed to be fitted out with a good musket, cartridge box and cuttoe / knie or ax.....had nothing to do with training.....stop making up crap you haven't researched.....your a nightmare to our cause.....omo.

You cite one law and think that’s the end of it. There are many laws to be considered.

like this one:

The "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" passed 17 March 1777, and the the subsequent Militia Act passed March 20, 1780, together with their amendments, required all white men between the ages of 18 and 53 capable of bearing arms to serve two months of militia duty on a rotating basis. Refusal to turn out for military exercises would result in a fine, the proceeds from which were used to hire substitutes.”

https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Archives/Research-Online/Pages/Revolutionary-War-Militia-Overview.aspx

Or this:

“In Massachusetts Bay, a British colony, all able bodied men, aged between 16 and 60 years had to serve in the local militia. By 1645, some men from this colony were selected from the ranks of the local militia, given extra training and had to be ready for action at short notice. This rapid deployment ability earned them the name Minutemen.”

https://totallyhistory.com/minutemen/

note the words : “ given extra training “

You have no idea what you are talking about if you don’t think these men trained together. And you can blow smoke up people’s @@@@ but it doesn’t mean what you think matters . It’s what the court is going to go with. And some matters have to have a practical sense to it. Why did SCOTUS uphold a parade permit process to assemble to protest? Do you know? 
If you want the necessary 5 votes on the SCOTUS bench, the permit requirement is going to pass the constitutional test with them. 
Stop killing the messenger because you disagree. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xXxplosive said:

Just got a ping at 4:32pm of a car fire on Rt.78W Bedminster, fully engulfed with driver out of the car....NJSP closing down all lanes as there is a firearm in the car with ammunition going off.......................Geeezzz.

My wife had to detour around that one today.

Share this post


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

You cite one law and think that’s the end of it. There are many laws to be considered.

like this one:

The "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" passed 17 March 1777, and the the subsequent Militia Act passed March 20, 1780, together with their amendments, required all white men between the ages of 18 and 53 capable of bearing arms to serve two months of militia duty on a rotating basis. Refusal to turn out for military exercises would result in a fine, the proceeds from which were used to hire substitutes.”

https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Archives/Research-Online/Pages/Revolutionary-War-Militia-Overview.aspx

Or this:

“In Massachusetts Bay, a British colony, all able bodied men, aged between 16 and 60 years had to serve in the local militia. By 1645, some men from this colony were selected from the ranks of the local militia, given extra training and had to be ready for action at short notice. This rapid deployment ability earned them the name Minutemen.”

https://totallyhistory.com/minutemen/

note the words : “ given extra training “

You have no idea what you are talking about if you don’t think these men trained together. And you can blow smoke up people’s @@@@ but it doesn’t mean what you think matters . It’s what the court is going to go with. And some matters have to have a practical sense to it. Why did SCOTUS uphold a parade permit process to assemble to protest? Do you know? 
If you want the necessary 5 votes on the SCOTUS bench, the permit requirement is going to pass the constitutional test with them. 
Stop killing the messenger because you disagree. 

 

You are sometin' else..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ShootersShooter said:

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.

Any response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

You are sometin' else..............

Show you NJ? The 2nd Amendment under Bruen isn’t limited to the text and tradition of NJ to use it against an NJ law. Remember that the Bill of Rights only applied against the federal government until it was incorporated under the 14th Amendment. It’s the history, text and tradition of all the founders that is to be considered. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC17: 

"Any response?"

He usually responds within a few days, with the holidays I didn't expect an answer until next week sometime. He and Assemblymen McGuckin and Catalano have been solid "No" votes on all of Murphy's illegal abuse of power.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

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

No. Well-regulated means well-trained, well-equipped. Gun advocacy groups tend to agree on that point. And from the NY cases that point has stuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to wonder why some people are so anti training to carry. Then again I see people who “passed” qualifications with 80% looking like they shot the target with a shotgun and then some who failed. One guy came to the qual with no ears on, RSO only found out after the first round. Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

25 permitless states require no training.....when are you guys here in NJ going to recognize what our US Constitution is really about and stop creating more obsticals for yourselves.......I can't believe some of this stuff.....your, your own worst enemies ....omo.

Many of those states have limits on where you can carry without a permit, which is a proxy for banning carry in these places without training. Texas for example has a pretty long list of places where you can’t carry without a LTC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, samiam said:

"Anti-training???" Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Opposition to required training is not at all the same as opposition to training, which I'm sure ytou are well aware of. Why are you so quick to join those willing to disregard Thomas' insistence that any restrictions be close analogs of those that existed from 1787 - 1791? I challenge you to substantiate that any kind of fomal training in the use of firearms was a common requirement for carry at that time. Even a left-wing, anti-gun, alleged Constitutional scholar like Lawrence Tribe concluded (after considerable research that began with the contrary assumption) that the reference to militia in 2A did NOT mean that carry was to be restricted to members of formal paramilitary organizations, yet your claim seems to rely on the idea that it does. I have have come to the reluctant conclusion that there are quite a few elitists here who are not wholeheartedly supportive of a plain reading of the Second Amendment. I would hope that you are not one of them. 

I’m in favor of mandatory objective training requirements to carry. I do not support permitless carry. If you’re carrying a weapon in public, if you are shooting a threat that shouldn’t be the first time you are firing your gun. That’s my opinion, and whether or not it’s supported by history I don’t know. That said, Clement didn’t contest that in the oral arguments in Bruen and the decision was silent about it. 

Share this post


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

Have to wonder why some people are so anti training to carry. Then again I see people who “passed” qualifications with 80% looking like they shot the target with a shotgun and then some who failed. One guy came to the qual with no ears on, RSO only found out after the first round. Lol. 

I used to be an armed guard. During yearly quals, most of the staff couldn't hit the target at 7yrds. Looked like that shotgun blast. Yet, tbey were allowed to open carry on federal property. 

Share this post


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

I’m in favor of mandatory objective training requirements to carry. I do not support permitless carry. If you’re carrying a weapon in public, if you are shooting a threat that shouldn’t be the first time you are firing your gun. That’s my opinion, and whether or not it’s supported by history I don’t know. That said, Clement didn’t contest that in the oral arguments in Bruen and the decision was silent about it. 

The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. Implicit in that is the concept that there is no test, prerequisite, or other limiter for one to exercise that right. 

As a responsible citizen one SHOULD get training and have the best understanding of firearms possible before carrying, but making it a requirement is wrong (IMO). 

There is no test required before people are allowed to spew vile, venomous speech that incites all kinds of mayhem. 

Ultimately there are consequences for going too far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 124gr9mm said:

The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. Implicit in that is the concept that there is no test, prerequisite, or other limiter for one to exercise that right. 

As a responsible citizen one SHOULD get training and have the best understanding of firearms possible before carrying, but making it a requirement is wrong (IMO). 

There is no test required before people are allowed to spew vile, venomous speech that incites all kinds of mayhem. 

Ultimately there are consequences for going too far...

A right is not absolute. For example, you have the right to freedom of religion but not to human sacrifice. Heller and Bruen state that quote plainly. 

  • FacePalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. Implicit in that is the concept that there is no test, prerequisite, or other limiter for one to exercise that right. 

As a responsible citizen one SHOULD get training and have the best understanding of firearms possible before carrying, but making it a requirement is wrong (IMO). 

There is no test required before people are allowed to spew vile, venomous speech that incites all kinds of mayhem. 

Ultimately there are consequences for going too far...

You are comparing speech to guns??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samiam said:

"Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. "

I assume that you have cites and references to reliable historical sources (ca. 1787 through 1791) that demonstrate this, correct? Just like the cites I challenged you to provide to the laws that institutionalize lawmaker indemnification for the results of legislative activity, and to prosecution for violation of their oaths?

I cited two laws in an above post. And that was just a quick internet search . If you want cites for the other thing, 

 

“legislative immunity

Primary tabs

 

A legal doctrine that protects legislators from being sued for all actions taken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity“

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legislative_immunity

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-legislative-immunity.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of infighting only benefits the anti-gunners. Everyone is a legal scholar behind the keyboard but have probably never made an argument in court. Neither have I. What I do know if that shaking your fist and saying I have a right means absolutely nothing if you don't play the game. The game being fighting for those rights either at the ballot box or the courts, and having them affirmed.

Now predictably, someone will read that and say I don't need anyone to affirm what right I know I have. Unfortunately that is NOT reality. Case in point, try carrying a gun openly while screaming its my right and see how far you get. There is a system in play and we must work within that system to get what we want. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mike77 said:

You are comparing speech to guns??? 

While I strongly support both, I think the First Amendment is potentially more dangerous than the Second.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I was taught, The rights in the Bill of Rights were not given to us by those who penned them. Those rights were given to us from God! Those unalienable rights were enumerated to say that NO government can ever touch those rights as they were God given!  God gave us the rights and New Jersey, nor any state or federal government have the right to take them away!

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 10X said:

While I strongly support both, I think the First Amendment is potentially more dangerous than the Second.

I'm inclined to agree. guns do nothing to the heart of man. But a riveting speech can motivate society to do unspeakable horrors. Hitler would agree.

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...