NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[GRIZ 3,369]

On 8/9/2023 at 2:44 PM, Grima Squeakersen said:

There is no training, licensing, or registration requirementfor exercising the right articulated in the amendment just before the Second... Why should RTKBA be any more fettered?

***New Jersey, where politicians and bureaucrats have elevated incompetence to an art form***

Read 10A.

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

So you believe all the NJ gun advocates should stop qualifying people to carry firearms?

Most of these qualified by the state are retired LEOs. 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

11 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

So you believe all the NJ gun advocates should stop qualifying people to carry firearms?

I believe that all NJ gun advocates should be taking all practical measures to repudiate and disassociate themselves from the reprehensible, parasitic, and exploitative conduct of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. Do you disagree with that premise? If so, on what grounds?

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Read 10A.

The Tenth Amendment denies States powers prohibited by the U. S. Constitution. At that point, the U. S. Constitution included both First and Second Amendments, which circumstance clearly (to me, at least) prohibits any State from either denying free speech or infringing arms rights. What part of that is inconsistent with what I wrote?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[JackDaWack 2,895]

12 hours ago, Grima Squeakersen said:

I believe that all NJ gun advocates should be taking all practical measures to repudiate and disassociate themselves from the reprehensible, parasitic, and exploitative conduct of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. Do you disagree with that premise? If so, on what grounds?

Where does the NRA fit into the question you were presented with? For all practical purposes, the NRA doesn't advocate in NJ much. We only have the leg of ANJRPC, which does a lot. My thoughts of the NRA wouldn't change the response to my question. 

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Meanwhile, in Maryland...

The Second Amendment In Under Attack in One ‘Blue’ State (msn.com)

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

19 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Where does the NRA fit into the question you were presented with? For all practical purposes, the NRA doesn't advocate in NJ much. We only have the leg of ANJRPC, which does a lot. My thoughts of the NRA wouldn't change the response to my question. 

"NRA doesn't advocate in NJ much". That may be true, but to me is evading an important part of the issue. Many, if not most, ranges in NJ advocate for the NRA . Many if not most require NRA membership to join the range. Most appear to frequently encourage their members to engage in a variety of NRA activities that make money for that group. That is money that could stay in the members' wallets, or go towards firearms or ammo, or even be donated to an organization that is actually making an honest effort to promote firearms rights in this crummy state. To me, that stinks. The management of those ranges know full well what a crock the NRA is. Maybe it is too much to expect them to repudiate it, but at the very least they could stop playing recruiting and collection agent for it.

[xXxplosive 823]

The NRA threw the towel in back in the early 90's in this state....I attended some of the meetings in Clinton, NJ with their NJ Rep. Roger...Hmmm. forgot his last name, Howard Brant, outdoor writer from the Star ledger back then, NJ Fish & Game and some other gun clubs here in NJ....the hard truth was, they (NRA) knew it was over for NJ....just that we didn't want to believe them at the time......guess it was so.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

3 hours ago, Grima Squeakersen said:

"NRA doesn't advocate in NJ much". That may be true, but to me is evading an important part of the issue. Many, if not most, ranges in NJ advocate for the NRA . Many if not most require NRA membership to join the range. Most appear to frequently encourage their members to engage in a variety of NRA activities that make money for that group. That is money that could stay in the members' wallets, or go towards firearms or ammo, or even be donated to an organization that is actually making an honest effort to promote firearms rights in this crummy state. To me, that stinks. The management of those ranges know full well what a crock the NRA is. Maybe it is too much to expect them to repudiate it, but at the very least they could stop playing recruiting and collection agent for it.

AFAIK, the NRA ranges requiring membership benefit from that relationship. I'm honestly suprised ANJRPC doesnt require it, hence i've never given the NRA a dime. 

Regardless, Im just missing how that related to the individuals/ranges who generally promote or advocate for gun rights and their perceived ability to  qualify people for CCW. Most places doing the qualifiers promote all of the organizations, many above the NRA. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:03 AM, Grima Squeakersen said:

The Tenth Amendment denies States powers prohibited by the U. S. Constitution. At that point, the U. S. Constitution included both First and Second Amendments, which circumstance clearly (to me, at least) prohibits any State from either denying free speech or infringing arms rights. What part of that is inconsistent with what I wrote?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Okay there are no training requirements listed in the 2A or anywhere in the COTUS.  Training requirements, if any, are RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY.  There is nothing that denies states the right to make training requirements UNLESS a court finds them unreasonable.  System sucks in so many ways but I don't think there is better.

[Walkinguf61 40]

8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Okay there are no training requirements listed in the 2A or anywhere in the COTUS.  Training requirements, if any, are RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY.  There is nothing that denies states the right to make training requirements UNLESS a court finds them unreasonable.  System sucks in so many ways but I don't think there is better.

Go read the  Heller decision and the second amendment. “ well regulated” had a different meaning in the 1790s just as militia didn’t mean the national guard but the people . It meant well trained. While I disagree with NJ’s standard, it is grounded in law and don’t let someone blow smoke to argue otherwise. The argument isn’t that they can require training but how much is reasonable. The kneeling part is going to get tossed out if just on the fact that disabled people might not be able to do it and to require that would deny their 2nd amendment rights.

[ESB 244]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:03 AM, Grima Squeakersen said:

The Tenth Amendment denies States powers prohibited by the U. S. Constitution. At that point, the U. S. Constitution included both First and Second Amendments, which circumstance clearly (to me, at least) prohibits any State from either denying free speech or infringing arms rights. What part of that is inconsistent with what I wrote?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison (1803)

A Voice Of Liberty: A Law Repugnant To The Constitution Is Void -- John Marshall's Path To Nullification

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 8/15/2023 at 8:04 AM, Walkinguf61 said:

Go read the  Heller decision and the second amendment. “ well regulated” had a different meaning in the 1790s just as militia didn’t mean the national guard but the people . It meant well trained. While I disagree with NJ’s standard, it is grounded in law and don’t let someone blow smoke to argue otherwise. The argument isn’t that they can require training but how much is reasonable. The kneeling part is going to get tossed out if just on the fact that disabled people might not be able to do it and to require that would deny their 2nd amendment rights.

Even then, Regulated didn't explicitly mean "trained". It really just ment functional. The militia should function well, and needs be armed. 

That significantly decreases what constitutes "well regulated" with respect to a qualification. 

The 2a also doesn't make this exclusionary, nothing states people have to meet an arbitrary bar to jump over to exercises the right of the people. If you can buy and own guns without such training, where does the 2a allow this line be drawn with carrying? 

[xXxplosive 823]

1779 Minutes......Gen. Washington demanded respect for his officers by the general armies...regulated had many meanings to many people including acting in a fashion becoming to an Officer....

[1LtCAP 4,262]

2 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Even then, Regulated didn't explicitly mean "trained". It really just ment functional.

sorry to chop up your post. but....this.

 

 when people try to throw the "well regulated means trained and qualified", i try to remind them of that jaimie lee curtis commercial for activia yogurt in which i believe she'd stated that it gave one a well regulated digestive system.

[GRIZ 3,369]

On 8/15/2023 at 8:04 AM, Walkinguf61 said:

Go read the  Heller decision and the second amendment. “ well regulated” had a different meaning in the 1790s just as militia didn’t mean the national guard but the people . It meant well trained. While I disagree with NJ’s standard, it is grounded in law and don’t let someone blow smoke to argue otherwise. The argument isn’t that they can require training but how much is reasonable. The kneeling part is going to get tossed out if just on the fact that disabled people might not be able to do it and to require that would deny their 2nd amendment rights.

The kneeling part is contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It will get tossed but not until someone argues it.

[GRIZ 3,369]

9 hours ago, ESB said:

"A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison (1803)

A Voice Of Liberty: A Law Repugnant To The Constitution Is Void -- John Marshall's Path To Nullification

Repugnant to the COTUS is an issue for courts to decide.  We can discuss it but it's up to the courts to decide what's repugnant.

[siderman 1,137]

5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The kneeling part is contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It will get tossed but not until someone argues it.

Hopefully it does just get tossed and ends there but I doubt it. NJ, in typical spiteful fashion, will want you to get ADA certified much like for a handicap plate for your car. More procedures and costs. Oh, and the form will be specific for ccw thus creating a built in stigma for any authorized entity's to ponder. Untill another lawsuit....

5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The kneeling part is contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It will get tossed but not until someone argues it.

Hopefully it does just get tossed and ends there but I doubt it. NJ, in typical spiteful fashion, will want you to get ADA certified much like for a handicap plate for your car. More procedures and costs. Oh, and the form will be specific for ccw thus creating a built in stigma for any authorized entity's to ponder. Untill another lawsuit....

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Is there historical relevance for this training? I think not. Courts said they were allowed to issue licenses, haven't visited what that even constitutes yet beyond being "law abiding", and physically capable of safely handling a firearm. 

[xXxplosive 823]

https://www.fox19.com/video/2023/08/17/irs-agent-kills-fellow-agent-phoenix-shooting-range-sources-say/?outputType=apps

[1LtCAP 4,262]

was probably one of those turds from the video that came out awhile back......remember the one with pretty much everyone that shouldn't be in that type of job? including the wheelchair bound dude?

[Scorpio64 5,147]

We need to demand the IRS bans guns in the agency, if it will save just one agent.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

2 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

https://www.fox19.com/video/2023/08/17/irs-agent-kills-fellow-agent-phoenix-shooting-range-sources-say/?outputType=apps

2 down

86,998 to go

[xXxplosive 823]

range discipline must be fantastic.....accountants with guns.....geeez......omo.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

 

------

 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

"longstanding verification procedures that make sure firearms-carriers do not pose a threat to public safety"

If the verification procedures are working, what is the threat that licensed firearms-carriers pose to anyone? If they are not working, why have them?

The repeated contradiction of kids need to be safe, and prohibiting people from carrying to protect their children is moronic.

I posit Murphy is an oxymoron - an eight sided idiot. He's an idiot every day of week and twice on Sunday.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

the sad part is that there are people out there that actually buy that drivel.

[brucin 923]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

the sad part is that there are people out there that actually buy that drivel.

They are all 8 sided idiots.