Latest from NRA on NJ votes

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Why wait till after the horse has left the barn? Why not be pro-active and try to head this crap off to begin with? Are they actively contacting each and every NJ state senator? I know I will be, starting with the idiots from my own district that will simply toss my letters in the trash, probably un-opened or at least un-seen by them. They will have their flunkies sort through the mail and pass-along the letters supporting their idiotic bills...............

[smoe_picka 0]

Why wait till after the horse has left the barn? Why not be pro-active and try to head this crap off to begin with? Are they actively contacting each and every NJ state senator? I know I will be, starting with the idiots from my own district that will simply toss my letters in the trash, probably un-opened or at least un-seen by them. They will have their flunkies sort through the mail and pass-along the letters supporting their idiotic bills...............

 

They simply don't care about what we have to say. Get the word out on who wrote, sponsored and voted now. I plan on doing just that whatever way I can.

[Jeff 13]

Didn't Greenwald or whatever numnuts in the assembly make some half-a$$ed explanation about how he 'logically' came up with 10 rounds based on 'evidence' and denied that they would just keep lowering that number arbitrarily? So, that was all a lie then? Gotcha.

 

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal (ex post facto or whatever) to make something illegal after it was purchased legally (i.e. no grandfathering)? Has that ever been challenged in court and if not, why not? I am thinking of including that in my letters to Sweeney and Christie. I would say something like, "Would you support legislation that limited cars to 200hp, and require citizens to either sell them out of state or surrender them to the police for no compensation? If not, how can you support this legislation? This is an affront to all Americans and will not be tolerated."

[BlueLineFish 615]

NRA wrote off Jersey a long time ago. I see money better spent with the NJ2AF.

[bhunted 887]

Joe, I really don't believe that. Because without some National exposure, local networks like NJ2AS would be busting their arses off thrice hard.

I'm all for giving to NJ2AS more than NRA, but it's a joint effort no matter what. IMHO...

 

NRA wrote off Jersey a long time ago. I see money better spent with the NJ2AF.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[NJDrew1 0]

Didn't Greenwald or whatever numnuts in the assembly make some half-a$$ed explanation about how he 'logically' came up with 10 rounds based on 'evidence' and denied that they would just keep lowering that number arbitrarily? So, that was all a lie then? Gotcha.

 

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal (ex post facto or whatever) to make something illegal after it was purchased legally (i.e. no grandfathering)? Has that ever been challenged in court and if not, why not? I am thinking of including that in my letters to Sweeney and Christie. I would say something like, "Would you support legislation that limited cars to 200hp, and require citizens to either sell them out of state or surrender them to the police for no compensation? If not, how can you support this legislation? This is an affront to all Americans and will not be tolerated."

Since both Sweeney or Christie could make,or break the issue, I wouldn't draw comparisons. Just simply stating that adopting a law with a 10-round limit, and no grandfather clause, will turn every owner of a semi-automatic handgun into a criminal AND with the run on magazines, with no magazines to be had in the short-term, people would either be forced to break the law, or not have use of their firearms at home for protection.

[njpilot 671]

Why wait till after the horse has left the barn? Why not be pro-active and try to head this crap off to begin with? Are they actively contacting each and every NJ state senator? I know I will be, starting with the idiots from my own district that will simply toss my letters in the trash, probably un-opened or at least un-seen by them. They will have their flunkies sort through the mail and pass-along the letters supporting their idiotic bills...............

 

Don't know if you posted this in response to my SCOTUS response,but if so, I'm not saying wait until after things are passed to fight it, but don't give up things hoping they will give us something else. They don't care. They would prefer to totally remove all our firearms. We can write letter all we want, and I have been, but this will come down to Christie signing or vetoing. If he signs, then our only hope is in the courts.

[NJDrew1 0]

Don't know if you posted this in response to my SCOTUS response,but if so, I'm not saying wait until after things are passed to fight it, but don't give up things hoping they will give us something else. They don't care. They would prefer to totally remove all our firearms. We can write letter all we want, and I have been, but this will come down to Christie signing or vetoing. If he signs, then our only hope is in the courts.

The senate's approach is usually a bit slower, and more deliberate. They have the ability to write their own legislation to be reconciled, if the assembly doesn't want theirs to go down in flames. If the senate's adjustments are agreed upon by both houses, it would then be up to Christie after the revised bills clear the senate. I don't think the senate will vote the bills out of their committee without addressing the issues raised. You never know though.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

I can't put the weight of all of this on Christies shoulders, most of this legislation should never even get that far. I am all for the mental health issues, but I want to see the EXACT wording and meaning of this bill. I don't see that they will EXEMPT lawful gunowners from losing ALL of their legally purchased weapons should someone inside their household be deemed a danger to him/herself and/or others. I can see THAT person losing his/her legally owned weapons until "cleared", but then again, what EXACTLY is the process that that individual will have to go-through to have their weapons returned? What happens when some of the confiscated weapons now go-missing, like that has NEVER happened before..............The local PD's have large enough safes to securely hold said weapons? I doubt it. Most of this knee-jerk legislation needs to be shelved and should never have been presented. In this and age though, NO ONE wants to be the one that said a certain bill was useless and then have something happen and be asked why they voted NO at the time. It's all about covering their collective asses............Always has been, always will be. Makes me think I should enter the race just to piss them off when someone level-headed doesn't tote the party line.

[BarkNBite 15]

Sweeny is a General Organizer for the Ironworkers Local..............are you kiddin' me......IMO, I'd rather take my chances on a dart board....this guy can't be trusted alone for C sake..IMO.

[Jeff 13]

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal (ex post facto or whatever) to make something illegal after it was purchased legally (i.e. no grandfathering)? Has that ever been challenged in court and if not, why not?

 

Responding to my own post-- okay, so I looked it up:

 

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 states:

• No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
  

 

And ex post facto explained:

• ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
  

• In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
  

• "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
  

How does making 15 round magazines illegal not violate the very first explanation??

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Jeff, not too sure they car about it. I know there is a shyt-storm brewing in CA right now over a tax issue. Seems like their state legislators passed a new law regarding a tax, and it is retroactive! How about that? Kinda like telling us that the NJ income tax rate is being increased to 15% and is retroactive back to 1999. Nothing and no one is keeping ANY of these clowns in-check nationwide.............

[Jeff 13]

How can they not care?! This was settled in 1798 for God's sake. And this isn't like the whole 2nd Amendment argument where there is discussion of "intent" on the part of the founding fathers. This is settled law. I don't get it. Clearly this would need to be challenged legally. I don't see how you can lose (he said, expecting logic to prevail in NJ, or CA for that matter).

[smoe_picka 0]

Troy SIngleton voted yes to almost everything and has open comment on FB.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

I love your list Smoe! I do think it may be too short after this last round of garbage to go through. Might be easier to list the PRO 2A's instead, won't take-up as much room.

[mpmike 0]

more than likely nothing will be grandfathered and you will have a 90 window to sell anything non compliant out of state,to an ffl or to turn it in

 

what about keeping it at a friend's or family member's house out of state? does that work?

[BlueLineFish 615]

Guns would technically have to be "sold" to someone else out of state. Mags can be left there if they are legal in said state

[smoe_picka 0]

I love your list Smoe! I do think it may be too short after this last round of garbage to go through. Might be easier to list the PRO 2A's instead, won't take-up as much room.

 

Thats the authors of this mess. The votes would take its own thread.

[mpmike 0]

Guns would technically have to be "sold" to someone else out of state. Mags can be left there if they are legal in said state

 

so what if i kept my gun, pinned a mag to keep the gun and mag in NJ, then left my full mags at my relatives house out of state. is that ok, or will that turn me into an evil dangerous felon? lol

[ChrisJM981 924]

 

 

so what if i kept my gun, pinned a mag to keep the gun and mag in NJ, then left my full mags at my relatives house out of state. is that ok, or will that turn me into an evil dangerous felon? lol

 

**if** we get to that point I will give my 2 cents on that. Till then I suggest writing your state senator and inform him/her how you expect him/her to vote. I'd include the ANRPC's bill analysis, and inform them that voting for the legislation you object to will require you to find and support a candidate that will represent your interests in the next primary.

[DJ_ 0]

Would someone please prepose a Bill that would make it mandatory that all candidates running for elected office here in Nj must first pass a psychiatric exam by a licensed physician before having their name posted on any ballot.....

 

There's this that apparently only me and someone else think is a good idea. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-all-politicians-pass-federal-and-state-background-checks-being-placed-election-ballot/PdVK43vy

[raz-0 1,259]

Responding to my own post-- okay, so I looked it up:

 

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 states:

• No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
  

And ex post facto explained:

• ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
  

• In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
  

• "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
  

How does making 15 round magazines illegal not violate the very first explanation??

 

 

BEcause it doesn't criminalize the possession of them on day -1, and it doesn't criminalize the purchase of them in the past. With the 90 day notice, it would criminalize the purchase of them 90 days from passage AND the possession of them 90 days after passage. Since possession would be the crime, and they would bust you for the possession in the future, rather than in the past, I don't see how ex post facto comes into it even if you would like it to.

 

You can argue that it technically denies you of property by creating a specialized market shared with no other place, then criminalizing them without compensation for their seizure or destruction if you can't find a buyer.

[Jeff 13]

I don't buy that argument. Why do the fed laws always grandfather? So would it be ok for legislators to ban cars over 200 HP and make possession illegal in 90 days? If they wouldn't do that, then this doesn't fly either.

[raz-0 1,259]

I don't buy that argument. Why do the fed laws always grandfather? So would it be ok for legislators to ban cars over 200 HP and make possession illegal in 90 days? If they wouldn't do that, then this doesn't fly either.

 

Fed laws grandfather because it is the whole nation. No grandfathering would require them to invoke the taking clause and start paying people. It'd also mandate that they either come searching house to house or let people ignore them. One isn't good for staying elected, the other isn't good after you just asserted you are the one in control.

 

They also don't want to spend the money.

 

 

States care less because as long as other states don't do it, they can easily argue they haven't denied you your property. You can move it out of state or sell it out of state.

 

If you chose not to understand this I can't help you.

[Jeff 13]

I understand your argument just fine, I just don't believe it to be valid. And to me it clearly violates the statute I cited. To me it doesn't matter how easily I can dispose of property I legally purchased. Why should that matter? Could we not sell items to foreign countries via eBay if a federal law prohibited it?

 

This is why (in general) I do not like lawyers. It's perfectly clear. You can't say something is legal on day one when I purchase it, and then claim on day two it is illegal and charge me with a crime.

[mpmike 0]

**if** we get to that point I will give my 2 cents on that. Till then I suggest writing your state senator and inform him/her how you expect him/her to vote. I'd include the ANRPC's bill analysis, and inform them that voting for the legislation you object to will require you to find and support a candidate that will represent your interests in the next primary.

 

don't worry, i'm not giving up. i've been writting letter after letter. lol

[Teky0101 6]

I am getting so confused who to contact anymore! Who can I right to oppose these laws? Does anyone have their email addresses?

[DJ_ 0]

Christie's task force: [email protected]

 

Chris Christie: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/

 

He will be on 101.5 tomorrow at 7pm so Call, email them and get on the interactive blog. http://nj1015.com/ask-the-governor/

[siderman 1,139]

I am getting so confused who to contact anymore! Who can I right to oppose these laws? Does anyone have their email addresses?

 

You need to join the NJ2AS and the will help with info like this:

 

 

 

 

 

*** TIME TO DEAL WITH CHRISTIE AND SWEENEY!!!

> >

> > Please set automatic faxes to send a RECURRING message to

> Governor Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney. It need only

> say FOUR WORDS- "DON'T MAKE US CRIMINALS" I think an interval of every

> hour should do it. Please > stagger it so not everyone is sending ON THE HOUR or we will cancel

> ourselves out > with busy signals. Take your age and keep dividing by 6 until you have

> a 1 or 2 digit number to use as the "minute after the hour" to send.

>

> Gov. Chris Christie's fax 609-292-5212

>

> Senator Stephen Sweeney's Fax 856-251-9752

>

> PLEASE DO THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is time to turn up the heat on

> these two gentlemen.