Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

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, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"....

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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...