Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

Just now, JohnnyB said:

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 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 right to take them away!

As a christian, I'll even appeal to the non-religious. You have certain rights that belong to you for existing. Those rights are not granted by your fellow man, because what man gives, he can take away. So there must be a higher authority that man in his corrupt nature, cannot ratify.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

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 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!

While you might be right , the bill of rights did not apply to the states until 1960 ( Mapp v Ohio). The 2nd didn’t apply to the states until McDonald , that’s even after Heller. Scary,  huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know th is wont change the mind of those who are deeply rooted in their beliefs but I will say my peace and maybe itll make sense to those who have never considered this point of view.

I do not agree and will not support mandated training. 

Follow me on this logic.

2A at its heart is for defense from tyranny (and thus self preservation aka self defense)

Tyranny from federal, state, local, it doesnt matter. If it is local tyranny you appeal up the chain of command, and ultimately if even the highest levels of government is still oppressive, 2A is a doomsday prevision. 

Now to claim that your right to own a gun is contingent on you take training... and this training is mandated by the very government that the 2A was written to safeguard against, is incompatible with the heart of 2A.

 

Now I love training, i recommend and encourage training. But telling me that I cannot own a gun, until I satisfy the whims of the government, which the 2A was put in place to put in check, created a system where they can make the training so cumbersome that very little people can/will get approved. Does ANY of this sound even a tad familiar? Yet there are people who will still push mandatory training, like NJ will never take advantage of that...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^Well Said!^^^^   It's common sense that it's our duty to remove a tyrannical government with the force of guns! Therefore, the tyrannical government can't have power to remove those guns making it impossible to overthrow them!  Our forefathers knew this and that is why the Bill of Rights was written as it was!

There should be NO debate about the government controlling our guns or our right to have them!:mad:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

I know th is wont change the mind of those who are deeply rooted in their beliefs but I will say my peace and maybe itll make sense to those who have never considered this point of view.

I do not agree and will not support mandated training. 

Follow me on this logic.

2A at its heart is for defense from tyranny (and thus self preservation aka self defense)

Tyranny from federal, state, local, it doesnt matter. If it is local tyranny you appeal up the chain of command, and ultimately if even the highest levels of government is still oppressive, 2A is a doomsday prevision. 

Now to claim that your right to own a gun is contingent on you take training... and this training is mandated by the very government that the 2A was written to safeguard against, is incompatible with the heart of 2A.

 

Now I love training, i recommend and encourage training. But telling me that I cannot own a gun, until I satisfy the whims of the government, which the 2A was put in place to put in check, created a system where they can make the training so cumbersome that very little people can/will get approved. Does ANY of this sound even a tad familiar? Yet there are people who will still push mandatory training, like NJ will never take advantage of that...

 

 

That is a different argument in a way than concealed carry. Something that should have been rectified before Bruen and under McDonald.  You can own a car without a driver’s license ( I know— it’s not a constitutional right) and it recognizes home gun possession without a carry permit. Even in NJ, until recently, some people did not require training or a background to own a gun and have it in their home . I am referring to people who owned guns before moving to NJ. That might be the next Bruen based case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, revenger said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.21.0.pdf

 

so nj responded,  to me just the usual nj commie response givin prior to bruin.

Bruen confirmed that the Second Amendment allows states to enact a host of gun regulations that expressly includes protecting sensitive places and requiring background checks.......It does??

the Bruen Court recognized that the right to publicly carry a firearm “has traditionally”—and constitutionally—“been subject to welldefined restrictions governing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry......it does??

The Court specifically identified that historical tradition as including (1) licensing requirements and (2) prohibitions on carrying firearms in “sensitive places.”....it does??

In passing the bill, the Legislature noted that Bruen “makes clear … that the Legislature can enact laws to protect our communities.....it does??

 

Why do I feel like they are using their interpretation of the ruling, and not the facts and exact wording?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

That is a different argument in a way than concealed carry. Something that should have been rectified before Bruen and under McDonald.  You can own a car without a driver’s license ( I know— it’s not a constitutional right) and it recognizes home gun possession without a carry permit. Even in NJ, until recently, some people did not require training or a background to own a gun and have it in their home . I am referring to people who owned guns before moving to NJ. That might be the next Bruen based case. 

That is an interesting argument. Here is where I disagree. 2A refers to keep AND bear. So in this analogy with the car, it would be like saying, keep AND drive. It would be a far reach to argue that the 2A ONLY applies to bearing arms on your own property. Though present day that argument is moot since SCOTUS was very explicit that we have a right that extends beyond the home. 

What are you refering to for the people who move to NJ? That they should go through the same process as us who already live here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

That is an interesting argument. Here is where I disagree. 2A refers to keep AND bear. So in this analogy with the car, it would be like saying, keep AND drive. It would be a far reach to argue that the 2A ONLY applies to bearing arms on your own property. Though present day that argument is moot since SCOTUS was very explicit that we have a right that extends beyond the home. 

What are you refering to for the people who move to NJ? That they should go through the same process as us who already live here?

I am pointing out that it’s not in the tradition of even NJ to require a gun permit to own . 
Before this new law if one moved to NJ there was no requirement to register the guns or a permit needed to have them .NJ only had a FID to purchase. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

it recognizes home gun possession without a carry permit.

In NY you are prohibited from owning a handgun unless you get a carry permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

I am pointing out that it’s not in the tradition of even NJ to require a gun permit to own . 
Before this new law if one moved to NJ there was no requirement to register the guns or a permit needed to have them .NJ only had a FID to purchase. 

Except that the FPID/PP exists in conjunction with the GCA of 68. This means that unless you get willed it, or had/have a residence in another state, you cannot own them without getting a permit. 

NJ has always been run by statist scumbags. We'd still be a colony if NJ determined how the nation was run. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Imagine they required the same permit process for speech?

Of course that’d follow the elimination of 2A, naturally.

People in the UK are arrested everyday for stating their opinions, stating biological facts and more. Doesn’t have to be a call to violence even.

or the same permit process to vote. a uninformed/emotional vote is a ton more dangerous than even a maduece.

Share this post


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

That is an interesting argument. Here is where I disagree. 2A refers to keep AND bear. So in this analogy with the car, it would be like saying, keep AND drive. It would be a far reach to argue that the 2A ONLY applies to bearing arms on your own property. Though present day that argument is moot since SCOTUS was very explicit that we have a right that extends beyond the home. 

What are you refering to for the people who move to NJ? That they should go through the same process as us who already live here?

Just want to point out, constitution protection aside,  "keep and bear" arms is not exactly analogous to "keep and drive" cars. When someone bears firearm, they are merely carrying it, not actively operating, i.e., firing it. The more appropriate analogue is to carry a car on a flatbed. You don't need license, registration or insurance for that car unless you decide to take it down for a spin on public road.

Now you may ask, what about defensive use of firearm in public? But in most public settings, we civilians can only discharge firearm during certain EMERGENCIES. Can state mandate license for any action to avoid death or severe bodily injury? Personally, I do not think so.

Of course, if state mandates license, registration and insurance for a Permit to Discharge Handgun in public during non-emergencies (if there is ever a such thing), I am all for it.  :D:D

Share this post


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

Imagine they required the same permit process for speech?

Of course that’d follow the elimination of 2A, naturally.

People in the UK are arrested everyday for stating their opinions, stating biological facts and more. Doesn’t have to be a call to violence even.

In some ways they do. To assemble for religious, or political speech , there are regulations that may apply. A parade permit to  assemble on public streets and places is often required. There are building  and fire codes as to how many people can be in the church building. There are regulations on the use of sound devices ( speakers ) where it concerns speech . Or how you can’t interpret a church service or just an event because you have something to say . You can not incite a riot 
However, this not saying that the restrictions they are trying to place on firearms  are constitutional. 
 

( this part is not directed at any one individual)
And to discuss that there might be limits to the 2nd amendment is not anti -second amendment nor hurts our cause  . It is a realistic approach as how SCOTUS is going to rule , and what the founding father meant, and sometimes what is realistic and practical. We should not just be an echo chamber like the left is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Yep. And should that be challenged? I don’t know yet . If they make the permit system easy enough, would a challenge be a successful ? 

The point ppl are trying to make is, where in the bill of rights and constitution say "with permit" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike77 said:

Bruen confirmed that the Second Amendment allows states to enact a host of gun regulations that expressly includes protecting sensitive places and requiring background checks.......It does??

the Bruen Court recognized that the right to publicly carry a firearm “has traditionally”—and constitutionally—“been subject to welldefined restrictions governing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry......it does??

The Court specifically identified that historical tradition as including (1) licensing requirements and (2) prohibitions on carrying firearms in “sensitive places.”....it does??

In passing the bill, the Legislature noted that Bruen “makes clear … that the Legislature can enact laws to protect our communities.....it does??

 

Why do I feel like they are using their interpretation of the ruling, and not the facts and exact wording?

Bruen does allow for sensitive places in the law— specifically places like courthouses and such. There is a tradition and history of such from 1791. I think you are okay with not carrying into a prison if you are visiting an inmate ( okay, maybe not) . The problem is they tried to make everywhere a “ sensitive place “. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Bruen does allow for sensitive places in the law— specifically places like courthouses and such. There is a tradition and history of such from 1791. I think you are okay with not carrying into a prison if you are visiting an inmate ( okay, maybe not) . The problem is they tried to make everywhere a “ sensitive place “. 

Because there is no real definition of sensitive place. No guns in government buildings... Ok, i can see that. But sensitive place is so vague.

 

Fyi. No guns allowed in prison. Including guards. 

Share this post


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

The point ppl are trying to make is, where in the bill of rights and constitution say "with permit" 

Where does it say in the constitution you need a parade permit? It doesn’t but SCOTUS declared it constitutional 

The supreme court has already upheld NICS and the GCA of 1968 in a post Heller case. 
And a permit system was approved in Bruen in the concurring opinion and in Heller majority opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

should that be challenged? I don’t know yet

The new safety course is taught over 3 days and costs $175 at Pine Tree Rifle Club a range I'm very familiar with and they work hard to keep prices low. They charge $175. It should be challenged and struck down period.

The previous course was a 4 hour basic handgun safety course and cost $25.

Share this post


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

The new safety course is taught over 3 days and costs $175 at Pine Tree Rifle Club a range I'm very familiar with and they work hard to keep prices low. They charge $175. It should be challenged and struck down period.

The previous course was a 4 hour basic handgun safety course and cost $25.

Range 129 Charges $50 for courses. We took Basic Handgun, Basic Holster (needed to take qual at the range), as well as low light, no light, advanced handgun.....did I need them? no...but I enjoy classes. 

Share this post


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

Range 129 Charges $50 for courses. We took Basic Handgun, Basic Holster (needed to take qual at the range), as well as low light, no light, advanced handgun.....did I need them? no...but I enjoy classes. 

Is this a NYS approved course to obtain a NY Permit To Carry? 

That seems cheap for a 16 hour class plus and additional 2 hours of live fire.

Share this post


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

Because there is no real definition of sensitive place.

That's the main problem. Thomas screwed up, and should have specifically stated what were these sensitive places. Instead, he left it up to interpretation for the states to decide. This is why we are where we are.

Share this post


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

That's the main problem. Thomas screwed up, and should have specifically stated what were these sensitive places. Instead, he left it up to interpretation for the states to decide. This is why we are where we are.

How did he screw up? SC cant define what a sensitive place is. They uphold laws, not write them. 

Share this post


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

The new safety course is taught over 3 days and costs $175 at Pine Tree Rifle Club a range I'm very familiar with and they work hard to keep prices low. They charge $175. It should be challenged and struck down period.

The previous course was a 4 hour basic handgun safety course and cost $25.

Are you talking about the new NJ safety course that has yet to be defined by the Superintendent of NJSP? The instructors and range also need to be approved by the Superintendent. How is it possible that Pine Tree Rifle Club has advance knowledge and approval before anyone else has heard a word from the Superintendent?

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...