My argument about NJ gun laws

[hardlife_nef 1]

The following was written in anger after I was held up at gun point in Paterson after a job interview Thursday morning. IANAL just trying to use lawyerese in the txt. I had thought to clean it up after doing some more research and sending it to state reps. Not that I think it will do any good but perhaps it will get some thinking. Stranger things have happened. Please not that I in no way advocate the breaking of any laws constitutional or otherwise. While I have done some reasearch in writting this note that I am just some uneducated schmo who was pissed at being robbed at gun point so take it for what its worth. Constructive comments and criticisms always welcome. Its cool to just tell me I'm flat out off my rocker. Sorry for the length as I tend to babble. All info was from google as well as state-citizen.org, all mistakes are mine.

 

Unconstitutionality of NJ gun laws

 

The equality and Rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of Right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

To be clear as possible a Right, a COMMON Right, an ABSOLUTE Right, an INALIENABLE Right, and a Right protected by the Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance of these terms by defining their meaning.

Right-- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to something out of possession; a power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary

Right-- As relates to the person, Rights are absolute or relative; absolute Rights, such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his or her personal liberty; Rights which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.

Right-- A legal Right, a constitutional Right means a Right protected by the law, by the Constitution, but government cannot create the idea of a Right or original Rights; it must acknowledge them .... See: Bouvier s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2916

Absolute Right -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligation, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

Inalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the Rights of its Citizen to hold and bear arms. Furthermore, the State has the duty to refrain from interfering with its Citizens Rights and to protect its Citizens Rights and to enforce the claim of its Citizens to it.

The United States Supreme Court states:

The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Which in turn protects the Second Amendment :A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The State cannot require its Citizens to give up a Right to obtain a privilege.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186:

The full significance of the clause law of the land is said by Ruffin, C.J. to be that statutes that would deprive a Citizen of the Rights of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677

It would be foolish for Citizens to exchange a Right for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible a Citizen to do such a thing?

Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consentor of any inalienable Right. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

Thus, even if a Citizen wanted to do so, they could not give up their Right to keep and bear arms or exchange it for the privilege granted by the State of having a concealed weapons permit. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration.

If the State cannot prevent its Citizens from keeping and bearing arms, the State does not have any discretion in the matter and does not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant its Citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms The obligation of the State must be to refrain from prohibiting its Citizens from carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise since the State does not have the Right to do.

It is the contention of this Citizen that the only obligation that this Staates Citizen incur when carrying a weapon is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, all Citizen do comply with many Statutes of the General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which Citizens avoid doing damage to others.

The Right to keep and bear arms is not a benefit received from the State. It was a Right that attached to all at the moment of birth and cannot be removed by the State.

It may be claimed that the Statutes of the General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State, and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.

The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents, for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a Right

The powers of government under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true intentional purposes. The fundamental Rights of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend Constitutional Rights. The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, and upon every power of government and its agents; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Citizens, whose natural Rights that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people.

To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The Right to keep and bear arms is a natural Right. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It plainly and clearly existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of Rights that we have all sworn to uphold, fight, and give our lives for.

It is not a Right, therefore, over which the police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental liberty, it is a Right to which the police power is subordinate.

Where inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The Right to keep and bear arms have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus, the police power cannot regulate the Citizens Right to carry a weapon.

If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the owning of carrying of weapons whether concealed or otherwise, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Citizen is denied the ability to carry concealed or otherwise; a fundamental Right of the Citizen has been abrogated.

Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)

The abrogation of inalienable Rights by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional.

If further proof is needed to show that this States Citizens need not be licensed to carry or purchase a weapon concealed or otherwise, it is provided in the following decisions:

A permit fee is a tax. See: Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 So. 257

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the Federal Constitution. See: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

Since a fee is charged for a concealed weapons permit as well as a Firearms ID card and since one's Right to keep and bear arms is a Right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require its Citizens to be licensed to purchase or carry a weapon.

The question now becomes, whether Citizens are required to obey any of the Statutes in the General Statutes? It has been shown that Citizens have a Right to keep and bear arms. So, any Statute that describes gun ownership as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the Right of these Citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which, would have the effect of denying the purchase and or carrying of weapons concealed or otherwise to its Citizens, cannot be applied.

Since violation of any Statue in the General Statutes is classified as a misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine and time in jail, and since putting its Citizens in jail because of their carrying a weapon, would be an abrogation of their Right to keep and bear arms, none of the Statutes of the General Statutes apply to these Citizens. These contentions are supported by the Supreme Court of United States.

 

SUI JURIS.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Wow. I want to take the proper time to read what you wrote, however I do want to respond concerning what happened. Holly Crap !!! I can not imagine ever being in that situation. Just the thought of it scares the life out of me. I'm so pleased to hear that no physical harm was done to you. I can only imagine that this event is a life changing event, that will be on you mind forever. People should not have to experience anything like this in their lifetime. I'm so sorry for you, but again, pleased that you're OK. Wow.

[Handyman 5,682]

You have to remember, most legislators are frankly not that bright. They have no capacity to respond to a well-reasoned argument. When I write to them, I try to keep it short and to the point, especially since someone else will be screening their mail. And I always formally ask for a response. In you case, I would put something like:

 

Dear (Legislator)

 

I wanted to relate to you an incident that occurred today in your district. I, a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, was held up at gunpoint. Since I am deprived of my constitutional right to defend myself, I found myself helpless and at the mercy of a criminal. The situation ended relatively well this time - I escaped with my life. People often tout the ready availabiliy of law enforcement personnel as a reason to deprive our citizens of their second amendment rights, but none came to my aid in a timely fashion. The criminal remains at large. Emboldened by his success in robbing me, I would image he has no good reason to alter his behavior. Perhaps his next victim will be killed.

 

How are you going to help me to change the law so that I do not have to remain a victim? I respectfully await your response.

 

Sincerely,

[hardlife_nef 1]

You have to remember, most legislators are frankly not that bright. They have no capacity to respond to a well-reasoned argument. When I write to them, I try to keep it short and to the point, especially since someone else will be screening their mail. An I always formally ask for a response. In you case, I would put something like:

 

Dear (Legislator)

 

I wanted to relate to you an incident that occurred today in your district. I, a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, was held up at gunpoint. Since I am deprived of my constitutional right to defend myself, I found myself helpless and at the mercy of a criminal. The situation ended relatively well this time - I escaped with my life. People often tout the ready availabiliy of law enforcement personnel as a reason to deprive our citizens of their second amendment rights, but none came to my aid in a timely fashion. The criminal remains at large. Emboldened by his success in robbing me, I would image he has no good reason to alter his behavior. Perhaps his next victim will be killed.

 

How are you going to help me to change the law so that I do not have to remain a victim? I resepctfully await your response.

 

Sincerely,

Thanks for the perspective, I do ramble especially when excited or passionate about something. I will take this into consideration. Perhaps I will send my blowhard comments and add something such as your comments (or something like them) as a summary of sorts. (bad executive summary flashbacks)

[mcbethr 42]

You have to remember, most legislators are frankly not that bright. They have no capacity to respond to a well-reasoned argument. When I write to them, I try to keep it short and to the point, especially since someone else will be screening their mail. And I always formally ask for a response. In you case, I would put something like:

 

Dear (Legislator)

 

I wanted to relate to you an incident that occurred today in your district. I, a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, was held up at gunpoint. Since I am deprived of my constitutional right to defend myself, I found myself helpless and at the mercy of a criminal. The situation ended relatively well this time - I escaped with my life. People often tout the ready availabiliy of law enforcement personnel as a reason to deprive our citizens of their second amendment rights, but none came to my aid in a timely fashion. The criminal remains at large. Emboldened by his success in robbing me, I would image he has no good reason to alter his behavior. Perhaps his next victim will be killed.

 

How are you going to help me to change the law so that I do not have to remain a victim? I respectfully await your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

+1 send this.

[gunforhire 826]

Great Job Nef!

[greatgunstatenj 32]

+1 send this.

 

Definitely. The first is too long, no one in Trenton (or elsewhere in NJ Politics) would spend the time to read it, regardless of how important it is. Sad but true.

[MrSurfboard 1]

I know it felt good to write it, but you might as well as have put it on toilet paper and flushed is down. Some staffer will read the first few lines and toss it. You might get a canned response letter thanking you for you input, but little else. Gun laws in NJ will never get better and probably get worse. Expecting NJ to change is like expecting California to change. aint going to happen I'm sorry to say.

[hardlife_nef 1]

I appreciate all the comment, guess I was hoping for more on what the post said as opposed to what I was going to do with it. Still gonna send it with a cover letter containing a simple summary. I do so with the knowledge that it will most likely go nowhere and is likely a waste of time and effort, however I would not feel right to not even try. No matter how useless the attempt may be I must do something. This is just my way of doing so. Hell I may have a bunch printed and hand them out. I'm sure the people in DC thought that making noise wouldn't make a difference, nor the people in Chicago. It has to change and if it doesn't at least I can say to myself that it wasn't for lack of effort on my part as I drive to my new home in a state that believes in freedom. I realize that there are people doing things that will have a real impact like the current lawsuits, but I don't feel that that negates the effort. Would that the state abandoned this reckless spending of funds on a case that they all but admit can't be won considering the economic crisis the sate is in. Just how spending money we don't have to defend a position that is indefensible just baffles me.

[colnar 0]

I think everything you wrote was well reasoned and to the point. The issue really comes down to the fact that politicians would never read anything that long. They have trouble understanding what you write when it is only a few sentences. Their would never finish anything that long. Sorry bout that.

[BarkNBite 15]

IMO..............no one in Trenton could comprehend it.

I'm impressed with the thought process..............nice.

[gunforhire 826]

Think I need to have you on GFH Radio to discuss.

[hardlife_nef 1]

Think I need to have you on GFH Radio to discuss.

Not opposed to the idea.

[Nickel1911 0]

You have to remember, most legislators are frankly not that bright. They have no capacity to respond to a well-reasoned argument. When I write to them, I try to keep it short and to the point, especially since someone else will be screening their mail. And I always formally ask for a response. In you case, I would put something like:

 

Dear (Legislator)

 

I wanted to relate to you an incident that occurred today in your district. I, a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, was held up at gunpoint. Since I am deprived of my constitutional right to defend myself, I found myself helpless and at the mercy of a criminal. The situation ended relatively well this time - I escaped with my life. People often tout the ready availabiliy of law enforcement personnel as a reason to deprive our citizens of their second amendment rights, but none came to my aid in a timely fashion. The criminal remains at large. Emboldened by his success in robbing me, I would image he has no good reason to alter his behavior. Perhaps his next victim will be killed.

 

How are you going to help me to change the law so that I do not have to remain a victim? I respectfully await your response.

 

Sincerely,

very well said

[Trunk 4]

Still gonna send it with a cover letter containing a simple summary. I do so with the knowledge that it will most likely go nowhere and is likely a waste of time and effort, however I would not feel right to not even try....Hell I may have a bunch printed and hand them out.

If you print it out, as is, it won't look much different than the unsolicited 911 conspiracy flyer that I received via fax a couple years back. Maybe it's the formatting, but I found it extremely hard to read. Do yourself a favor and don't rush it. You're understandably emotional, but just take your time and clean it up. Add parts and subparts, if necessary.

 

With that said, you're not going to change anyone's mind, even with the best legal analysis. If you're trying to make a statement to your representatives, make it concise. Explain what happened, why you think it happened, how it could have been different and the consequence if he/she does not take action.

[hardlife_nef 1]

If you print it out, as is, it won't look much different than the unsolicited 911 conspiracy flyer that I received via fax a couple years back. Maybe it's the formatting, but I found it extremely hard to read. Do yourself a favor and don't rush it. You're understandably emotional, but just take your time and clean it up. Add parts and subparts, if necessary.

 

With that said, you're not going to change anyone's mind, even with the best legal analysis. If you're trying to make a statement to your representatives, make it concise. Explain what happened, why you think it happened, how it could have been different and the consequence if he/she does not take action.

Good points. This is a first draft I posted here looking for comments (and to get it off my chest). Yeah it is a bit hard to read and in desperate need of editieng and some formatting love.

[RLTW 3]

As anyone tried to sue the state for loss of property & duress. I know we can't hold police liable, but has anyone looked at holding the state liable? They have passed laws that have made self defense impossible.

[Dan 177]

Terrible what happened to you OP. I would be furious also.

 

That being said, I agree with many others here. Condense it down to a paragraph or two, and back off from the legalese. You need to appeal to a politician, not a judge or lawyer.

 

Make it about self defense primarily, then ease into how you feel that having a fair CCW program in NJ would have afforded you a means to defend yourself. Make it something that anyone can understand. A politician knows that any newspaper that gets hold of this will just ignore it. If you appeal to the common person, from 18-99 years old in easy to understand terms... that scares them into action more than anything else.

[Handyman 5,682]

As anyone tried to sue the state for loss of property & duress. I know we can't hold police liable, but has anyone looked at holding the state liable? They have passed laws that have made self defense impossible.

 

That is an interesting idea. I would imagine it would get thrown out pretty early, though. For those that think changing the law is hopeless, I will relate a story.

 

I once went to a lunch where a US congressman and his staffers were talking about their decision making process, lobbying, etc. The congressman related a story that he was once running from a committee meeting to the house floor to vote on something. As is typically the case, he knew little about what was on the agenda up for vote that day. As he was running, his staff was briefing him on the way.

 

A bill was mentioned, and he asked if any constituents had called about it. His staffer told him that nine people had called in favor. He asked if anyone had called in opposition and was told no. He said on the basis of this, he decided to vote in support the bill.

 

Now I am sure that the bill was nothing overly controversial, but still, try to understand the implications. He represents around nine million people, but he based his decision on the fact that nine people cared enough to call him. Nine people effectively made a decision for nine million. I know something this simple would not occur with a heated issue like gun control, but it inspired me to write to legislators everytime I feel the need to do so. Like them or not, belong to the same party or not, these morons work for us.

[johnp 45]

Glad to hear you walked away unscathed.

[vladtepes 1,060]

not to be negative but here is the stumbling block you face IMO..

 

in your situation the sheeple of NJ think the following..

"money lost compliant victim no one injured"

 

in a ccw scenario this is what the sheeple of NJ think...

"a hail of automatic fire between you and potential criminal in which 29 of the 30 rounds you fire hit grandmothers, babies, puppy dogs, and children"

 

so for them.. it is better that you were robbed and defenseless..

[Aleshka 0]

not to be negative but here is the stumbling block you face IMO.. in your situation the sheeple of NJ think the following.. "money lost compliant victim no one injured" in a ccw scenario this is what the sheeple of NJ think... "a hail of automatic fire between you and potential criminal in which 29 of the 30 rounds you fire hit grandmothers, babies, puppy dogs, and children" so for them.. it is better that you were robbed and defenseless..

 

Sad, but very true...

[Handyman 5,682]

All criminals must know that we are all told that our lives are not worth our wallets.

 

But if every time a violent criminal tried to rob someone he got a tooth knocked loose, an eye poked out or a couple of broken ribs, I bet he would turn to non-violent crime pretty fast...

[vladtepes 1,060]

the other factor..... is the insane amount of training needed to even consider doing something... robbed at gun point.. think about that for a second... how ready are you when you grab your gun instead of your wallet.. are you shot dead before even fully drawing.. can you shoot in a scuffle.... do you know how to control his gun AND get a shot off one handed...

[Sigman 41]

Awesome letter and glad you're OK! The only way I see laws changing in NJ is by being forced through the court system. Have you discussed this with a good lawyer? Letters to politicians will do little. They won't even read it and most likely, you'll get a form letter back. It's a shame for the time you put into this.

 

Unfortunately, NJ is a deep-rooted liberal/democratic state. It's going to take an act of God and excellent lawyers for anything to change. I applaud your effort!

[Sigman 41]

the other factor..... is the insane amount of training needed to even consider doing something... robbed at gun point.. think about that for a second... how ready are you when you grab your gun instead of your wallet.. are you shot dead before even fully drawing.. can you shoot in a scuffle.... do you know how to control his gun AND get a shot off one handed...

 

Vlad - the biggest problem is we aren't allowed to even make that decision. NJ is part of the machine where "the government knows whats best for us." I don't want the government making a decision for me when it comes down to life or death. But you're right, it's a totally different story when you're placed in that situation.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Vlad - the biggest problem is we aren't allowed to even make that decision. NJ is part of the machine where "the government knows whats best for us." I don't want the government making a decision for me when it comes down to life or death. But you're right, it's a totally different story when you're placed in that situation.

 

I agree.. I carry a gun EVERY day... but I just get nervous when everyone thinks a gun is some great equalizer..

 

gun + lack of practice/skill = fail

[hardlife_nef 1]

the other factor..... is the insane amount of training needed to even consider doing something... robbed at gun point.. think about that for a second... how ready are you when you grab your gun instead of your wallet.. are you shot dead before even fully drawing.. can you shoot in a scuffle.... do you know how to control his gun AND get a shot off one handed...

Given all the factors during the incident, I am very confident that had I been armed the situation would have gone differently. Hard to relate all the factor to someone that wasn't there. I say this being a Army and Marine Corps veteran. I have also held a ccw permit when I was a Florida resident and been in 2 other similar scenarios where thanks to having a firearm turned out differently. I practice scenarios such as these with friends several times a month. I'm not saying that being armed is always going to be able to make a difference, but not being able to make that determination is putting me in greater danger. I very strongly believe that if you are going to make the concious choice to carry a concealed firearm (in state where the constitution actually exisits) then you have to make the commitment to train for the time when you may need to use said firearm. Otherwise you are just putting yourself and possibly others in greater danger. In the end I just believe that I should be the one to be able to decide whether to give up money or lead based on the situation.

[ianargent 7]

For all the folks banging the "news training to foil a bad guy" drum, read some of the incidents that get written up in American Rifleman in that self-defense column some time, or look at need reports of same. Most of the time simply displaying the ability to defend is enough.

 

For the rest, see the recent decision out of Maryland - the existence of the right is sufficient justification.

[Handyman 5,682]

Granted, resisting is a big risk to make in a split-second decision. But it isn't like the average street scum have many training advantages over most of us. They are conditioned to expect success because 99% of their victims would never resist. If I thought it was feasible to resist in a single attacker scenario, I would act absolutely terrified (even more than I really was). Maybe even piss my pants on purpose. I would fumble getting my wallet out and maybe even drop it. I would fumble pulling some cash out of another pocket. I wouldn't fumble with the next thing I pull out.

 

I'm no hero, and I am not saying I would do this in every encounter. Maybe you get shot in a situation like this. Probably most people who get shot don't get killed...