Response from District 23-John DiMaio

[Chvl67 0]

Encouraging. But most likely tools like Cryan are crafting this nonsense under cover of darkness:

 

Thank you for your email expressing your opposition to stricter gun laws

such as legislation recently signed into law in New York. To date,

legislation has not come before me for consideration however, please be

assured that I continue to support the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution

and do not believe this is the answer to reducing violent criminal acts.

I would prefer representatives at both the state and federal level focus

efforts on mental health care, substance abuse prevention, and education

reform.

 

Regards,

 

John DiMaio

 

[ryan_j 0]

Awesome!

[jm1827 284]

Nice to see for a change-

[Chvl67 0]

This is why I live out in the middle of the woods on 2 acres in NJ-they keep saying how there's such a big difference between "inner city" and rural areas. Ok, but stop punishing me for what some crackhead gangbanger in Camden does.

Most of my local reps get it-almost everyone out here hunts, while I keep reminding them that the 2nd is NOT about hunting. I have a few friends that think "no effect on me", but there most assuredly will be. I cornered the guy delivering my propane last week, to determine if he has firearms, I asked if he hunted. He had no idea these bills were before NJ until I gave him all the info,(essentially how some of the stuff would invalidate everyone's FID's) including the numbers to call, what groups to support, and the 2/8 rally

Still waiting on my other 2 reps responses.

[bhunted 887]

Ya know, not for nothing, but sending any favorable emails explaining your feelings and getting a favorable answer in return should not have you depicting the guy being a tool. Especially in the same message.

 

Remember, almost all areas of this forum can be read without an account, (which I don't get)... And enough people who support us and who read this negativity and that really are trying to back the cause, are eventually going to say screw you... IMHO....

Every score on our side is a a good score till proven differently.

 

Encouraging. But most likely tools like Cryan are crafting this nonsense under cover of darkness:

 

Thank you for your email expressing your opposition to stricter gun laws

such as legislation recently signed into law in New York. To date,

legislation has not come before me for consideration however, please be

assured that I continue to support the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution

and do not believe this is the answer to reducing violent criminal acts.

I would prefer representatives at both the state and federal level focus

efforts on mental health care, substance abuse prevention, and education

reform.

 

Regards,

 

John DiMaio

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Chvl67 0]

Ya know, not for nothing, but sending any favorable emails explaining your feelings and getting a favorable answer in return should not have you depicting the guy being a tool. Especially in the same message.

 

Remember, almost all areas of this forum can be read without an account, (which I don't get)... And enough people who support us and who read this negativity and that really are trying to back the cause, are eventually going to say screw you... IMHO....

Every score on our side is a a good score till proven differently.

 

 

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

I don't understand what you're saying. I applauded MY assemblyman DiMaio, and called Cryan, who's been the author or sponsor of most of these bills a tool. Fitting I think. And my point is that since my assemblyman has no knowledge of these bills, chances are folks like Cryan are trying to rush them through before more sensible guys like DiMaio can read them.

[bhunted 887]

I read while you said, "Encouraging", but then went on with the But..... Tools line. It made it sound like you praised him, but made him to be a tool like the rest. If I read it wrong, I apologize....

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Chvl67 0]

No worries-my fear is the same thing that happened in NY: Cryan like sponsors craft this nonsense, only get the support of their cronies, then spring it on reasonable guys like DiMaio, and force a vote. My emotions and thoughts sometimes get ahead of my iPhone typing.

I sent DiMaio a follow up with the list of 43 bills, urging him to read them.

All of them are bad enough, but the restriction of State pensions to not invest in firearms manufacturers has to be the most un-American, anti-Capitalist crap I've ever seen.

[Chvl67 0]

More good news from District 23!

Response from Asm Doherty:

 

Mark,

 

Thank you for your input on recently proposed gun control legislation.

 

I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I have introduced legislation

that would simplify the procedure for securing a permit to carry a

handgun in the State of New Jersey, Senate Bill 269.

 

Please be advised that I will certainly give consideration to your

comments if this legislation comes before the Senate for a hearing and a

vote.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike Doherty

 

[bhunted 887]

Stream line it? All I see is, "and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." and see no wordage indicating that there is anything worthwhile to anything else they mention unless that portion is removed. That is a deal breaker and always has been. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Here is the bill: http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S269

 

 

 

More good news from District 23!

Response from Asm Doherty:

 

Mark,

 

Thank you for your input on recently proposed gun control legislation.

 

I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I have introduced legislation

that would simplify the procedure for securing a permit to carry a

handgun in the State of New Jersey, Senate Bill 269.

 

Please be advised that I will certainly give consideration to your

comments if this legislation comes before the Senate for a hearing and a

vote.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike Doherty

[jdubsss 0]

I just don't see Christie signing any of these radical bills if he really wants to make a bid for the white house in 2016. That being said we all still must get active. Call, fax, and e-mail your reps. Unfortunately for us NJ has the lowest percentage of gun owners in any state so we have to make our voices heard!!

[Chvl67 0]

Stream line it? All I see is, "and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." and see no wordage indicating that there is anything worthwhile to anything else they mention unless that portion is removed. That is a deal breaker and always has been. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Here is the bill: http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S269

Well, I'm encouraged by 2 out of my 3 Assemblymen taking a position that NJ laws are onerous already, and don't seem to be inclined to support any of the new "43".

As far as his "streamline" bill: While it does have some good modifications (such as removing the vague subjective "not in the interest of the public welfare" denial reason, or the carry permit not restricting to a specific firearm) I am not sure how the "justifiable need" language or the Superior Court judge authorization changes much--but I'm optimistic that he's at least trying to chip back away at the huge roadblocks that this horrible state has erected.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Stream line it? All I see is, "and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." and see no wordage indicating that there is anything worthwhile to anything else they mention unless that portion is removed. That is a deal breaker and always has been. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Here is the bill: http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S269

 

If your implying that State Sen. Doherty's proposed bill keeps the "justifiable need" clause intact you're mistaken. The bracketed text would be changed or removed and replaced with the green text. Unless I'm wrong, NJ S269 would do the following:

 

1. When found in possession of "firearms, weapons, destructive devices, silencers, or explosives in a vehicle," a person would be considered innocent until proven otherwise in the eyes of the law instead of the current "it shall be presumed that he does not possess such a license or permit or has not registered or given the required notice, until he establishes the contrary"

2. When it comes to FPID's & P2P's, applications could not be denied on the grounds "any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare"

3. Permits to carry would last for 5 years instead of the current "2 years"

4. On the permit to carry application, removes "such other information as the superintendent may prescribe for the determination of the applicant's eligibility for a permit and for the proper enforcement of this chapter" and adds proof of the completion of a firearm safety course by the applicant, two frontal view photographs of the applicant.

5. Removes the inclusion of providing 3 references that have known the applicant for at least 3 years and testify to their being of good moral character and behavior and instead provides that the applicant "shall attest under penalty of perjury that all of the statements thereon are true. The superintendent shall not add any requirements to the application which are not specifically authorized in this subsection."

6. Removes the provision that the permit to carry be limited to one specific firearm and adds that the permit extends to any legally owned or possessed handgun by the holder.

7. Removes that an applicant must show "that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun" and adds the P2P requirements to the Permit to Carry criteria

8. Removes Superior Court entirely from the permit to carry process

 

​Looks good to me, but it probably won't even make it out of committee

[bhunted 887]

Dude, I just tried to read your response and it gave my eyes a headache. It's all messed up with html code. Can ya clean it up a bit? If you tried to cut and paste the bill, I don't think this forum software likes html code.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Dude, I just tried to read your response and it gave my eyes a headache. It's all messed up with html code. Can ya clean it up a bit? If you tried to cut and paste the bill, I don't think this forum software likes html code.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

 

Yeah no idea why it ended looking like that since it looked fine in the reply box, but I edited it. Took me forever to delete all the #>! nonsense

[Chvl67 0]

Thanks Wile E! I suspected much of what you outlined above, but wasn't sure of how the edited text in the bill removed and replaced.

Clearly my Assemblyman gets it.

If only there were more like him-but this is Hunterdon county, where not much beyond Clinton resembles a "city".

[bhunted 887]

Hey, we can only pray it goes through, but in this communist state, I suspect nada.. Thanks for fixing the text...

[Pythagoras 2]

 

 

If your implying that State Sen. Doherty's proposed bill keeps the "justifiable need" clause intact you're mistaken. The bracketed text would be changed or removed and replaced with the green text. Unless I'm wrong, NJ S269 would do the following:

 

1. When found in possession of "firearms, weapons, destructive devices, silencers, or explosives in a vehicle," a person would be considered innocent until proven otherwise in the eyes of the law instead of the current "it shall be presumed that he does not possess such a license or permit or has not registered or given the required notice, until he establishes the contrary"

2. When it comes to FPID's & P2P's, applications could not be denied on the grounds "any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare"

3. Permits to carry would last for 5 years instead of the current "2 years"

4. On the permit to carry application, removes "such other information as the superintendent may prescribe for the determination of the applicant's eligibility for a permit and for the proper enforcement of this chapter" and adds proof of the completion of a firearm safety course by the applicant, two frontal view photographs of the applicant.

5. Removes the inclusion of providing 3 references that have known the applicant for at least 3 years and testify to their being of good moral character and behavior and instead provides that the applicant "shall attest under penalty of perjury that all of the statements thereon are true. The superintendent shall not add any requirements to the application which are not specifically authorized in this subsection."

6. Removes the provision that the permit to carry be limited to one specific firearm and adds that the permit extends to any legally owned or possessed handgun by the holder.

7. Removes that an applicant must show "that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun" and adds the P2P requirements to the Permit to Carry criteria

8. Removes Superior Court entirely from the permit to carry process

 

​Looks good to me, but it probably won't even make it out of committee

 

I really hope this passes!

 

Re: fear/likelihood that NJ won't let it pass, who wants to run for office next election cycle?

[Chvl67 0]

I really hope this passes!

 

Re: fear/likelihood that NJ won't let it pass, who wants to run for office next election cycle?

I doubt it--But that's one of the reasons that out of all the counties in this state--I moved to Hunterdon to be with like minded, REASONABLE legislators. Not every county in NJ is "blue", and the masses need to get that through their heads.

But it's this sort of thing that frustrates me: because I keep hearing how there's some substantial difference and justification for gun control in urban areas as opposed to rural ones. I live in a rural area--mostly all farmland. Our zoning requirements for building lots were minimum 2 acres, and have increased to 7. So why I must I be penalized for the criminals who violate the law in the interest of the "greater good".

We have a crime control problem, not a gun control problem. Until people are willing to admit that, the record will keep skipping on the same track.

[Pythagoras 2]

I doubt it--But that's one of the reasons that out of all the counties in this state--I moved to Hunterdon to be with like minded, REASONABLE legislators. Not every county in NJ is "blue", and the masses need to get that through their heads.

Maybe I should consider a move to Hunterdon like you did...

 

We have a crime control problem, not a gun control problem. Until people are willing to admit that, the record will keep skipping on the same track.

Preaching to the choir!

[Chvl67 0]

Maybe I should consider a move to Hunterdon like you did...

Hunterdon is very much a "red" county. Not that I think the R's are a whole lot better than the D's--but at least at the local level, they understand that the government should stay out of peoples' way a lot more than other places.

Unfortunately, with all this nonsense going on, I'm regretting buying my house here every single day--If I had any faith that we wouldn't take an absolute beating on trying to sell it, it would be on the market tomorrow. I'm only 3 miles from the Delaware on the NJ side--which if I would have gone a few miles the other way, I "could be trusted" more than here.

But given that--we've got 2.5 acres--so not being right on top of my neighbors was a requirement. I suppose it's a little bit of laziness (like my sister, who bought in Middlesex) because people want to be in the middle of everything. I knew full well moving out here that you "don't go out to get stuff, you get stuff when you're out". I'm a good 30 minute round trip to the nearest convenience store.

But our taxes are reasonable, by NJ standards. I suppose that's only a matter of time, and there's no way I have ANY intention of retiring in this state.

[Pythagoras 2]

Hunterdon is very much a "red" county. Not that I think the R's are a whole lot better than the D's--but at least at the local level, they understand that the government should stay out of peoples' way a lot more than other places.

Unfortunately, with all this nonsense going on, I'm regretting buying my house here every single day--If I had any faith that we wouldn't take an absolute beating on trying to sell it, it would be on the market tomorrow. I'm only 3 miles from the Delaware on the NJ side--which if I would have gone a few miles the other way, I "could be trusted" more than here.

But given that--we've got 2.5 acres--so not being right on top of my neighbors was a requirement. I suppose it's a little bit of laziness (like my sister, who bought in Middlesex) because people want to be in the middle of everything. I knew full well moving out here that you "don't go out to get stuff, you get stuff when you're out". I'm a good 30 minute round trip to the nearest convenience store.

But our taxes are reasonable, by NJ standards. I suppose that's only a matter of time, and there's no way I have ANY intention of retiring in this state.

 

I recently applied to a few grad schools..... Maine, North Carolina, and Florida are all starting to look really good

[Chvl67 0]

Florida

As my friend for many years who moved down there to work at his now defunct NASA job called it: "The Gunshine State"

[Pythagoras 2]

"The Gunshine State"

 

Love it!