I'm not sure what this means, exactly, wanna weigh in?

[Downtownv 1,778]

Garden State Gun Grabbers Tout Second Circuit Decision in Desperate Cry for Help

 

By John Petrolino | 11:31 AM on December 13, 2023

 

https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2023/12/13/garden-state-gun-grabbers-tout-second-circuit-decision-in-desperate-cry-for-help-n78387?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=00ea90fbf351bbfd29c96affd26f2dca49954a466ec9e3e8139f308bd8a1cb93

[siderman 1,138]

This may help

 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

1 hour ago, Downtownv said:

Garden State Gun Grabbers Tout Second Circuit Decision in Desperate Cry for Help

 

By John Petrolino | 11:31 AM on December 13, 2023

 

https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2023/12/13/garden-state-gun-grabbers-tout-second-circuit-decision-in-desperate-cry-for-help-n78387?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=00ea90fbf351bbfd29c96affd26f2dca49954a466ec9e3e8139f308bd8a1cb93

Since the 2nd Circuit upheld the sensitive places parts of the NY law, the NJ AG's office wrote a letter to the 3rd Circuit Judges saying they should copy NY.

The exception is that the 2nd Circuit supported the District Court decision that the default rule for private property that is open to the public does not require express consent from the property owner before a person can carry there. In the letter to the 3rd Circuit they basically said that the 3rd Circuit should follow the 2nd Circuit's decision, except where they got the default rule part wrong.

[Downtownv 1,778]

I get the 1st part it's the second part, that I can't make sense about.

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

The short version is Angela Cai wants the 3rd Circuit to follow the 2nd Circuit on all the bits she likes because if they didn't it would cause a split, but for the parts she doesn't like she's happy for there to be a Circuit split.

She wants her cake and to eat it too.

[Downtownv 1,778]

Thank you, Stu.

[revenger 473]

when are the NJ gun groups and nationwide gun groups, FPC, GOA, NRA going to start exploring filing lawsuits against these state actors who openly violate their oath of office and misuse state funds to do so.   there is a statue for  violating  the oath and I'm sure something similar to misusing state funds ( your tax dollars ) for those of you in Rio Linda.  I would think any taxpayer has standing in a case like this.

 

Lets go ANJRPC, start attacking.  think outside the box already!   The communists are attacking the constitution at every chance and not letting up,  It's just a matter of time until they "find" some crack in the ice.

 

   we have to attack, defend and be vigilant 100% of the time,  the domestic terrorists only have to be successful once to win. 

[Downtownv 1,778]

Revenger, well said.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

42 minutes ago, revenger said:

when are the NJ gun groups and nationwide gun groups, FPC, GOA, NRA going to start exploring filing lawsuits against these state actors who openly violate their oath of office and misuse state funds to do so.   there is a statue for  violating  the oath and I'm sure something similar to misusing state funds ( your tax dollars ) for those of you in Rio Linda.  I would think any taxpayer has standing in a case like this.

 

Lets go ANJRPC, start attacking.  think outside the box already!   The communists are attacking the constitution at every chance and not letting up,  It's just a matter of time until they "find" some crack in the ice.

 

   we have to attack, defend and be vigilant 100% of the time,  the domestic terrorists only have to be successful once to win. 

there is more money in treating the disease than there is in curing the disease.

[father-of-three 243]

22 hours ago, siderman said:

This may help

 

Will the Supreme Court have the opportunity to slap this down too?

Wow... a law from 1328 that wasn't even a law here, but they did a good Cherry picking job to spin it that way.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

6 hours ago, revenger said:

 there is a statue for  violating  the oath

What specifically is that statute?

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

6 hours ago, revenger said:

when are the NJ gun groups and nationwide gun groups, FPC, GOA, NRA going to start exploring filing lawsuits against these state actors who openly violate their oath of office and misuse state funds to do so.   there is a statue for  violating  the oath and I'm sure something similar to misusing state funds ( your tax dollars ) for those of you in Rio Linda.  I would think any taxpayer has standing in a case like this.

 

Lets go ANJRPC, start attacking.  think outside the box already!   The communists are attacking the constitution at every chance and not letting up,  It's just a matter of time until they "find" some crack in the ice.

 

   we have to attack, defend and be vigilant 100% of the time,  the domestic terrorists only have to be successful once to win. 

If all Federal and State governments fully acknowledged and recognized the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the raison d'etre for those groups would largely appear to vanish. Of late I have been reflecting on the idea that they may be more acutely aware of that than I previously suspected...

5 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

there is more money in treating the disease than there is in curing the disease.

A much more succinct expression of what I posted :-)

[siderman 1,138]

55 minutes ago, father-of-three said:

Will the Supreme Court have the opportunity to slap this down too?

Wow... a law from 1328 that wasn't even a law here, but they did a good Cherry picking job to spin it that way.

That too lol, but there was more focus on a obscure 1791 statute from North Carolina? that just ended up not being a real thing but it also just reinforces their desperation.

[revenger 473]

49 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

What specifically is that statute?

I posted it here years ago,   i'll try to find it

[revenger 473]

41:1-2       41:3-1

ANJRPC should start by filing ethics violations against platkin and his minions like cai.   using tax dollars in an attempt to overthrow the the constitution.   

 

 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

2 hours ago, revenger said:

41:1-2       41:3-1

ANJRPC should start by filing ethics violations against platkin and his minions like cai.   using tax dollars in an attempt to overthrow the the constitution.  

 

Quote

41:1-2. Persons required to take oath of allegiance

The governor for the time being of this state, and every person who shall be appointed or elected to any office, legislative, executive or judicial, under the authority of this state, or to any office in the militia thereof, and every counselor, solicitor and attorney at law, shall, before he enters upon the execution of his trust, office or duty, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 41:1-1 of this title.

I don't see how this statute could be used to prosecute an "oath breaker".  It just requires them to take an oath of allegiance.  It says nothing about the "breaking" of that oath.

 

Quote

41:3-1. False swearing, affirmation of declaration; perjury

If any person shall willfully and corruptly swear, affirm or declare falsely, in or by any oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, required to be made or taken by any statute of this state, or necessary or proper to be made, taken or used in any court of this state, or for any lawful purpose whatever, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.

Ok, this is somewhat better; to prosecute you'll need to prove that they falsely swore their oath of allegiance.

Did they actually know that the legislation they sponsored/voted for violated the constitution that they swore to uphold? 

Can you prove that they knew that, at the time they acted?  When X numbers of their colleagues, who also swore the same oath, held the same belief and voted in support?  When similar legislation was passed in X other states?

Can you demonstrate to the court that the threat posed by an "oath breaker" is substantially worse than the chilling effect on the legislative process that would happen if legislators were able to be individually prosecuted for perjury when a piece of legislation they passed was judged to be unconstitutional X years later?

 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

8 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Can you demonstrate to the court that the threat posed by an "oath breaker" is substantially worse than the chilling effect on the legislative process that would happen if legislators were able to be individually prosecuted for perjury when a piece of legislation they passed was judged to be unconstitutional X years later?

You seem to think chilling the dumbass legislators desire to pass more and more dumb laws is a bad thing. I'd say it would be a great thing. 

Testimony during the hearings prior to passing new bills that tell them that they are going against the constitution should be plenty of proof that they knew before they passed the law. When SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional, that is the proof that they ignored the facts and indeed did act against their oath. If they want to point to other legislators that voted the same way, that makes it a conspiracy charge as well as treason. 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

43 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

You seem to think chilling the dumbass legislators desire to pass more and more dumb laws is a bad thing. I'd say it would be a great thing.

I'm not arguing for what I think is right, I'm arguing what I think you'd need to prove and demonstrate in court.

If there was regular, routine prosecution of legislators for passing laws that courts later determined to be unconstitutional, the legislative process definitely would be different. 

An interesting thought exercise is if legislators could and were regularly  individually prosecuted, Hillary had won instead of Trump, and SCOTUS was majority "liberal" instead of conservative.  Would you still be happy with legislators being scared to pass laws because SCOTUS might later determine they were unconstitutional?

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

If this process was in place, Hillary would be nowhere near the presidency. 

[ESB 247]

On 12/14/2023 at 4:06 PM, father-of-three said:

Will the Supreme Court have the opportunity to slap this down too?

Wow... a law from 1328 that wasn't even a law here, but they did a good Cherry picking job to spin it that way.

Also that law did not prevent the people from carrying weapons in those places, it was only to prevent them from using weapons in a manor to terrorize the people in those places.  The Supreme Court in Bruen said that this law from England in 1328 cannot be used as the basis to deny people their 2nd amendment rights.  

Inferior Court indeed.    

[ESB 247]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:49 PM, DirtyDigz said:

Can you demonstrate to the court that the threat posed by an "oath breaker" is substantially worse than the chilling effect on the legislative process that would happen if legislators were able to be individually prosecuted for perjury when a piece of legislation they passed was judged to be unconstitutional X years later?

We are seeing the chilling effect of allowing legislators to write clearly unconstitutional laws knowing that it would take years and millions and millions of dollars to change it and that there would be no recourse against them, allowing them to do it over and over again.  They are weaponizing this process against law abiding citizens.    

The NJ legislators were warned when writing and voting on the Carry Killer Bill that it was not constitutional and that they would not be able to find the required historical precedence to back it up.  The legislators said they promised they could, but never did. Not even close.  Parts have already been found to be unconstitutional just as they were warned.  Those legislators who wasted our tax payers money and violated our constitutional rights in order to push their agenda need to be held accountable and personally responsible for the liabilities.  Something needs to be done as they cannot be allowed to continue to write clearly unconstitutional laws with impunity.  

 

 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Something does need to be done, but never will.  Hell, we can't even pump our own gas.  49 other states can, but us, nope.

[Downtownv 1,778]

4 hours ago, ESB said:

We are seeing the chilling effect of allowing legislators to write clearly unconstitutional laws knowing that it would take years and millions and millions of dollars to change it and that there would be no recourse against them, allowing them to do it over and over again.  They are weaponizing this process against law abiding citizens.    

The NJ legislators were warned when writing and voting on the Carry Killer Bill that it was not constitutional and that they would not be able to find the required historical precedence to back it up.  The legislators said they promised they could, but never did. Not even close.  Parts have already been found to be unconstitutional just as they were warned.  Those legislators who wasted our tax payers money and violated our constitutional rights in order to push their agenda need to be held accountable and personally responsible for the liabilities.  Something needs to be done as they cannot be allowed to continue to write clearly unconstitutional laws with impunity.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

Something does need to be done, but never will.  Hell, we can't even pump our own gas.  49 other states can, but us, nope.

 

 

[ESB 247]

Here is an example where a Judge is even saying that not only was the law clearly unconstitutional, but was written in open defiance of the Supreme Court.  This sort of stuff NEEDS to have repercussions.  Without it, it is just begging liberal lawmakers to continue to write unconstitutional laws that strip us of our rights and freedoms with impunity, knowing that it will be years and years before its changed and then they can just do it again, just slightly different, because there is no reason for them not to.   All the while, costing tax payers on both sides millions and millions of dollars.  As well as incarcerating and ruining the lives law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights.    

 

https://theragingpatriot.org/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-repugnant-california-gun-law/

United States District Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California halts the ban on concealed guns in public locations.

Carney slammed Newsom’s law and said, “SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

A recent "The Reload" episode covered this subject with Assistant Prof. of Law at George Mason U. - Robert Leider.

It was a great listen, highly recommend it:

https://share.fireside.fm/episode/HGsI3XtY+pv_UPIOE

They also did a video interview with Robert Leider, it's just a shorter outtake from the podcast:

Invidious Link (youtube proxy with no tracking and no ads):

https://invidious.slipfox.xyz/watch?v=W44bH7AzjD8

Youtube link, if you must:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W44bH7AzjD8

Article Robert Leider wrote on the same subject:

https://standinghisground.com/2023/01/17/should-state-officials-receive-qualified-immunity-for-creatively-resisting-bruen/

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Someone's trying impeaching the Governor of New Mexico due to constitutional oath breaking.

Let's see how it goes:

https://nitter.1d4.us/RepBlock/status/1747437988580126906#m

[Displaced Texan 11,748]

11 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Someone's trying impeaching the Governor of New Mexico due to constitutional oath breaking.

Let's see how it goes:

https://nitter.1d4.us/RepBlock/status/1747437988580126906#m

Good. She needs to be impeached and removed from office. 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

There is a logistics issue with removing and/or punishing politicians who have broken their oaths to uphold the Constitution - you'd need to prosecute nearly all of them. Not that I have any problem with that concept, but I suspect I am in the minority on that.

[Displaced Texan 11,748]

11 minutes ago, Grima Squeakersen said:

There is a logistics issue with removing and/or punishing politicians who have broken their oaths to uphold the Constitution - you'd need to prosecute nearly all of them. Not that I have any problem with that concept, but I suspect I am in the minority on that.

I don’t call this a problem. 

Hang them all, and start fresh. Rope is plentiful. 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

5 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

I don’t call this a problem. 

Hang them all, and start fresh. Rope is plentiful. 

I'm not completely confident that there is enough rope.