OH MY GOSH!

[jsincaminca 4]

I'm not going to display my 2A rights by breaking them-- that's not how change works.

 

So do you think the whole civil rights movement was wrong?

[bbk 188]

To me, that is a stupid comparison. Why? Because that was a totally different matter. That was a matter in which rights weren't just being trampled and infringed upon, but where people were literally being killed.

 

Yes, my, and all other NJ residents (and others who live in nanny states/towns/cities), 2A rights are infringed. However, we're at a point where we can stand our ground, and it's a matter of not giving up an inch-- as well as pushing back and hopefully restoring our rights as they should be. There are plenty of ways of achieving this end without breaking the law as it is currently written. I recommend these ways.

 

The day when gun owners across NJ and/or the country are being killed because they are gun owners is the day when 1. sh*t has hit the fan and 2. rule of law would probably be murky at best, and I would be using my firearm in self-defense regardless

IMO, the argument that criminals are killing people who could be defending themselves is a moot point because our rights are not dependent on the fact that someone may or may not want to inflict harm, but because our 2A rights are a right, period. Why a person feels they should exercise their 2A rights is dependent on them individually, and has no bearing in the larger picture.

[Cylinder Head 22]

I'm very interested to see how this pans out. Looks like the "defendant" has some 'splaining to do but I would love if this was used as a springboard to some AWB changes.

[jsincaminca 4]

Like it or not, this may be the perfect test case for NJ's AWB. There was no violent crime committed nor any intent to do so apparent.

 

If you want to make an omelet, you gotta crack a few eggs. You guys want the AWB overturned? Here's your test case.

 

How else could you challenge the AWB, besides someone nonviolent being arrested for possession of one?

 

You want change, here's your chance. It would be great for SAF and NJ2AS to get on board with this.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

To me, that is a stupid comparison.

 

Strong words, particular from a moderator! I'm not sure that I love the analogy myself, but people getting killed were not central to the civil rights movement. We already had laws in place against lynchings and other murders. The whole CRM was about assuring that a large group of people would receive equal protection under the law. It's not really equivalent to 2A issues, but there are some similarities IMHO.

[bbk 188]

I do agree that this is a good test case, albeit that doesn't justify breaking the law. But like I said, I'm going to wait for the details to emerge. If it is to benefit for the community to stand behind this individual, then I have no problem with the community backing him. But we'll have to see.

 

And it is a stupid comparison because a person who uses that analogy is simply using it for the hot button words and shock value. Being reasonable and prudent regarding the topic is far more effective, IMO, then to throw around words or topics that would get people riled up while really not even comparing. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a minority, and I still get treated like a second-rate citizen at times; and to me the comparison of rights of man vs. rights of citizen/country are in far different categories and shouldn't be mixed.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Also something to take into consideration is that people broke the law during the civil rights movement to bring light to how screwed up the country was. Intent plays a big role, maybe the big idea is more important but people will always recognize the intent. Did this guy have an illegal weapon to prove a point? I would stand behind that.

 

Should we all buy collapsible stocks and fashion them in front of the court house? Remember the protesters were thrown in jail back then before any change took place.

[PK90 3,570]

The charges will be plea bargained down and this case will never see a courtroom, hence no precedent.