Another Victim of Senseless NJ Laws

[njpilot 671]

Most of us from NJ (and likes) are too brainwashed by "way of life" that we don't think twice about rubbing it on rest of the country.

 

If you are good to vote, participate in democratic process, elect Govt, pay taxes and roam the country as free man, then you are good to go with 2A. No exceptions, No restrictions. 

 

Restrictions on 2A should come with "strict  scrutiny" , on case-by-case, as a last resort only. It cannot be "proactive" and "thought crime" based.

Well said

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Yes I think people who aren't mentally ill or have a criminal history should be able to possess a firearm without training.

 

I think they should get some training, but don't think it should be mandatory.

 

That's fair enough.... as  long as they're also willing to accept the consequences for not getting that training...for not knowing everything they *should* know....

[Sota 1,191]

My mother still won't stop and I'm the one that's become the head of the family.  What's the difference between a mother and a pitbull?  A pitbull eventually lets go.

QFT.

 

I'm 41 and my mom still acts like... a mom!

[CMJeepster 2,777]

That's fair enough.... as  long as they're also willing to accept the consequences for not getting that training...for not knowing everything they *should* know....

*gasp*  You mean being accountable?

 

[illy 1]

"So, since it is a "constitutional right,"would you favor anyone being able to possess, use, carry concealed, etc. any weapon with no training at all?"


Yeah, I do.

 

 

EDIT:

Also holy water and the internet.

 

I'm a no training needed to exercise one's rights as found in the Bill of Rights kind of guy.

 

Heck, I would even extend that to really dangerous stuff, like chainsaws, gasoline, kitchen knives and ::gasp:: sling shots.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

So, since it is a "constitutional right," would you favor anyone being able to possess, use, carry concealed, etc. any weapon with no training at all? Would you allow your children said access to weapons without any training or supervision?  Or allow them to be around other children that possess weapons without proper training?

Any weapon?  "...something used to injure, defeat, or destroy..."  Like my belt, metal pen, shoe laces or pocket knife?  What about my lightning-fast feet?

 

[carl_g 568]

Most of us from NJ (and likes) are too brainwashed by "way of life" that we don't think twice about rubbing it on rest of the country.

 

If you are good to vote, participate in democratic process, elect Govt, pay taxes and roam the country as free man, then you are good to go with 2A. No exceptions, No restrictions.

 

Restrictions on 2A should come with "strict scrutiny" , on case-by-case, as a last resort only. It cannot be "proactive" and "thought crime" based.

Agreed.. we have people here thinking that I the states should place restrictions on constitutional rights because they are so used to not being free. The way I am reading these arguments is that PA needs to have stricter gun laws for their citizens. Am I wrong?

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Any weapon?  "...something used to injure, defeat, or destroy..."  Like my belt, metal pen, shoe laces or pocket knife?  What about my lightning-fast feet?

 

 

Well, I was focusing on "firearms" when I said that, but....

 

But an interesting point... Assuming based on 2A rights that we could possess, own, use, etc. *any* weapons, training or not, what would you want to possess/own?  And, I'm not limiting it to what we currently have "on the table" in this country. I mean "military," NFA, anything...   What would you want to own?

 

I'm probably not thinking as big as most of you, but my list would certainly include:

 

  1)  Classic M-16 full auto;

  2)  MAC 10/11 Full Auto (probably 9mm);

  3)  Tac Ops Bravo-51 (.308 Winchester)  for sniper competitions;

  4)  Barret M82A1 (.50BMG) for the challenge of shooting it accurately;

  5)  Colt LE6920 with collapsible stock (.223)

 

I don't see the need (for myself) for things like RPG's or Nukes, or SMAWs, or whatever..... but maybe a nice Sherman Tank....

[pjd832 146]

Actually I can say with 100% certainty that I have never broken any NJ gun laws. I take gun ownership very seriously and researched online before I even bought my first gun to find out the laws. I carried in PA before I moved to NJ and would never even think to bring my gun into NJ or any state without checked if my LTCF was valid in that state and specific laws to that state regarding transporting, etc.

 

Im sick of dumb gun owners doing stupid shit and simply saying well I didnt know. You are taking on the responsibility of carrying a gun, so be responsible and know the laws. Especially with how easily everyone has access to the information.

agreed....they might want to rethink the "gangsta chic" Facebook type pic they showed several times in the video in the ops link.......if they are trying to go the "poor innocent victim/mother on her way to a church function accidentally crossed over into nj with her ccw"  atlantic county is nowhere close to pa border.....id venture to say she was looking more like the pic with her mugging with the gold license plate necklace than the scrubs and stethoscope holding kids ....when the police pulled her on the way to/from atlantic city.....just saying lol

[HBecwithFn7 296]

"So, since it is a "constitutional right,"would you favor anyone being able to possess, use, carry concealed, etc. any weapon with no training at all?"

 

 

Yeah, I do.

 

I'm a no training needed to exercise one's rights as found in the Bill of Rights kind of guy.

 

And that's perfectly fine.  As long as you're also willing to take personal responsibility for owning/possessing/using them without training or knowledge of the laws needed to avoid any legal issues...  I know.... I know.... "those laws are 'unjust/unconstitutional' ".  And I agree that many if not most of them are... But, until we can change them, we either need to obey them, or be willing to accept the consequences of not obeying them. In either case, I'd think we should, at least, *know* them.

[Sota 1,191]

I want fissionable material.

[jackandjill 683]

Well, I was focusing on "firearms" when I said that, but....

 

But an interesting point... Assuming based on 2A rights that we could possess, own, use, etc. *any* weapons, training or not, what would you want to possess/own?  And, I'm not limiting it to what we currently have "on the table" in this country. I mean "military," NFA, anything...   What would you want to own?

 

I'm probably not thinking as big as most of you, but my list would certainly include:

 

  1)  Classic M-16 full auto;

  2)  MAC 10/11 Full Auto (probably 9mm);

  3)  Tac Ops Bravo-51 (.308 Winchester)  for sniper competitions;

  4)  Barret M82A1 (.50BMG) for the challenge of shooting it accurately;

  5)  Colt LE6920 with collapsible stock (.223)

 

I don't see the need (for myself) for things like RPG's or Nukes, or SMAWs, or whatever..... but maybe a nice Sherman Tank....

ICBM ? :-)

[HBecwithFn7 296]

ICBM ? :-)

 

Nah... Too old, too bulky, too "high maintenance..." 

[magnawing 5]

Patriot Battery

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[Michael2013 56]

Fox News showed this in the morning.  Going national...  It was nice to hear the outrage about NJ laws.

[djg0770 481]

Well, I was focusing on "firearms" when I said that, but....

 

But an interesting point... Assuming based on 2A rights that we could possess, own, use, etc. *any* weapons, training or not, what would you want to possess/own?  And, I'm not limiting it to what we currently have "on the table" in this country. I mean "military," NFA, anything...   What would you want to own?

 

I'm probably not thinking as big as most of you, but my list would certainly include:

 

  1)  Classic M-16 full auto;

  2)  MAC 10/11 Full Auto (probably 9mm);

  3)  Tac Ops Bravo-51 (.308 Winchester)  for sniper competitions;

  4)  Barret M82A1 (.50BMG) for the challenge of shooting it accurately;

  5)  Colt LE6920 with collapsible stock (.223)

 

I don't see the need (for myself) for things like RPG's or Nukes, or SMAWs, or whatever..... but maybe a nice Sherman Tank....

My list:

 

Full auto 1919

M203

Stinger

Uzi

Hand Grenades

[voyager9 3,434]

Mk38 mod 2

Or

Phalanx CIWS.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

This wouldn't be "accidental" or "fast/direct."    This would be a pondered, conscious decision on the part of the parents to exercise their religion and accept the risk/consequences of doing so.  Like I say.... just because it's a "constitutional right" doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities."

 

FTR, I freely admit I'm not a practitioner of any variety of "faith healing."  I believe too strongly in the power of medicine and science. That said, I would certainly support any "adult's" right to practice it, if that's their choice. The more pertinent question is, do parents have the right to make that choice on their children's behalf? Does any child's "right to life" supersede parental rights in re: how the child is raised? I also admit I'm not a parent, either, but I would more than likely lean towards the child's right to life as the greater priority here. Among our "constitutional rights" is the very fundamental right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hard to do when your parents make a decision for you that gets you dead, religious or otherwise.

 

But again, this isn't denying/abridging anyone the right to free speech or religion.  This is allowing the free exercise of it, but accepting the societal consequences of doing so, should something go wrong (i.e. fall out for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater).

It is perfectly legal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater when there is a fire.  There is no prohibition on the word "FIRE" in NJ (yet).

[SgtToadette 59]

The thing that gets me about this case more than anything is that unlawful possession of a handgun is a second degree crime. What else is a second degree crime in New Jersey? Sexual assault and manslaughter. Really!?

 

If this was a misdemeanor or an aggravated charge, then I could see it making sense, but Title 2C is effectively saying that the woman in this case may as well have sexually assaulted or negligently killed someone. She'd be in the same boat. That's what's mind boggling to me.

 

I've discussed this with my liberal friends and their retorts were absolutely mind boggling (and this is coming from the token "liberal" among us, mind you). I'm getting the hell out of this state ASAP. I need to retreat inland because there must be something in the water.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

It is perfectly legal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater when there is a fire.  There is no prohibition on the word "FIRE" in NJ (yet).

 

I'm not saying there is a prohibition on the use of the word. I'm only saying that use of the word in this context, when there is no true emergency, carries consequences that the user should face for using it improperly or maliciously.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

The thing that gets me about this case more than anything is that unlawful possession of a handgun is a second degree crime. What else is a second degree crime in New Jersey? Sexual assault and manslaughter. Really!?

 

If this was a misdemeanor or an aggravated charge, then I could see it making sense, but Title 2C is effectively saying that the woman in this case may as well have sexually assaulted or negligently killed someone. She'd be in the same boat. That's what's mind boggling to me.

From the beginning of all this, I have always believed that the punishment far exceeds the crime. And I'm also totally frustrated with the decision to "make an example" out of this lady and not offer PTI. I think they're making a colossal mistake with that. I mean, it's not like she's some thug that was looking to commit crimes, etc. If I were on her defense team, I'd play up on the MSM what's going on, wherever they'd listen, and make her a martyr (and make the prosecutors look totally evil) for going after her. I'd be on Channel 12 (or "Chasing NJ") or whatever every day until it got noticed/picked up.

 

I've discussed this with my liberal friends and their retorts were absolutely mind boggling (and this is coming from the token "liberal" among us, mind you). I'm getting the hell out of this state ASAP. I need to retreat inland because there must be something in the water.

 

How so, "mind boggling?"    

 

And be careful how far "inland" you go.  At least one good thing about NJ is that they don't allow "fracking" here, thus potentially contaminating that water...

[mikelets456 78]

It's a shame the cop didn't just say "ma'am I appreciate your honesty, but you are gonna have to lock that gun in your trunk". Then helped her instead of arresting her. Unfortunately I doubt that happens in nj.

 

 

Exactly. She was honest enough to reply honestly and even though she did not have to say anything, she voluntarily did her "duty to inform". The cop needed to use some common sense and simply tell her to lock it up in the trunk or remove the ammo, lock it in the trunk, explain why and then escort her back to the bridge.

 

I understand laws are laws but this cop just ruined her life. Before you get all over me for blaming the cop, would it be fair if you're carrying and end up 2' in a school zone without knowing it? You're in NC and your duty is to inform. You [just so] happened to be riding a bike and you're almost a 1/5 mile away from a school zone that you don't realize you're in...should you spend 10 years in jail? Or would the proper outcome be that the officer explain you're on the fringe area and please leave now?

 

I see both sides to this as we all go online, research the crap out of this stuff before we even attempt to carry. There's bound to be the exemption and she has NO excuse. But she was being honest and this cop should have taken that into account. 

 

I guess the lesson learned is "keep your mouth shut". It's a shame that we've gotten' to that point of distrust for one another, but sadly we are there.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I understand laws are laws but this cop just ruined her life.

Agreed. Of course, the standard "official" LE response to that would be, "She ruined her own life by violating the law." But, like you say, if there was ever a case where the LEO could have offered a bit of "discretion" and *should* have, it's this one. What I want to know is, why the LEO didn't. Likewise, why didn't the AG (the acting prosecutor) offer PTI. Until either/both explain why, I'm only left to speculate that they want to make an example out of her as a "law abiding" gun owner, and that their war isn't against the "criminal" (which they realize they can't control) but against the law abiding citizen (which they *can* control and want to control, such that we don't ever get *out of* control). As stated earlier, I believe that effort will fail, as her defense could (with the help of a bit of social and other media) paint her as a martyr, and make those going after her look like mega-monsters.

 

 

Before you get all over me for blaming the cop, would it be fair if you're carrying and end up 2' in a school zone without knowing it?

 

Really depends on the LEO and their motivations. Technically, yes, it's a violation. After all, a LEO could issue a speeding ticket for going 1 mile over the limit. The question is, what would motivate the LEO to put in the effort to make the bust and do all that bureaucracy, paperwork, court appearances, etc.? Is it the LEO's personal belief/preference? Did they actually feel "threatened" by the presence of the person and/or concealed weapon? Was it a directive from "senior management" to bust people for this (i.e. "zero tolerance")? That's why I want to know why the LEO busted her instead of using that "discretion." I think the fact that the AG/prosecutor is not offering PTI is a significant "tell" that there's some political pressure coming from somewhere.

 

My last juror instance was the same thing.  The case should have never come to trial, given what little evidence the prosecutor presented. Yet, there we were, deliberating. I suspect they went to trial because the county district atty. is from the same town wherein the incident occurred, and the defendant grew up in the area originally but was visiting from "out of state (also PA)," and there may have been some "local town" political pressure to bring the defendant to trial anyway. They did, I guess, hoping that the jury would "reverse nullify."  We didn't.   I posted on this before... You can read about the trial in this thread.

 

I guess the lesson learned is "keep your mouth shut". It's a shame that we've gotten' to that point of distrust for one another, but sadly we are there.

 

The only concern there being, if the LEO was really fishing to bust her for something (anything), and she kept quiet, and the LEO effected a search (i.e. he suddenly "smelled a certain odor" coming from the car)... it could have gone much much worse for her...

 

[Shawnmoore81 623]

[gski1 3]

Being talked about on Fox "The Five" right now.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Excellent article in (of all places )  The Washington Post!  Lays the whole thing out.  I'm amazed to see this there.

[Johnny 0]

Maybe if she claimed some sort of gang affiliation she could get off with a slap on the wrist.

[Newtonian 453]

Agreed. Of course, the standard "official" LE response to that would be, "She ruined her own life by violating the law." But, like you say, if there was ever a case where the LEO could have offered a bit of "discretion" and *should* have, it's this one. What I want to know is, why the LEO didn't. Likewise, why didn't the AG (the acting prosecutor) offer PTI.

Discretion should be the prosecutor's decision, not the cop's. What if she really was up to no good? Highly unlikely since she went to the trouble of getting a Pennsylvania carry license, but still. What if a superior learned that he had let her go? He'd certainly lose his job, maybe go to jail himself. They weren't very close to the border but if they'd been, and he followed her back let's say (the way cops used to follow drunks home), he might have to explain his actions. Judging from the fact that you can spend up to 10 years in jail, what she did is a very serious offense in NJ. Sensible people wish it were not so, but unfortunately it is. The remedy is to elect individuals who will change the law.

 

BTW even prosecutorial discretion is not always such a great idea. I know a municipal prosecutor who does not pursue cases of driving without a license for illegal aliens. 

[djg0770 481]

What if she really was up to no good? Highly unlikely since she went to the trouble of getting a Pennsylvania carry license, but still.

 

highly unlikely not because she went to the trouble of GETTING a PA carry but highly unlikely because in order to GET that PA carry she had to have no objectionable offenses in her background to begin with.

 

To assume that all of a sudden a single mother with 2 kids takes the trouble to get a carry license and then will INTENTIONALLY go out and attempt to "make trouble" is entirely unlikely.

 

The woman was foolish for not reading the law.  The law however is overly punitive toward the unintentional violator and utterly absurd in it's lack of teeth toward the repeat criminal.

 

I am supremely disappointed that NRA, GOA, SAF, and that other local gun organization are not trumpeting this all over creation.  Oh yeah, where is that great civil rights activist (race baiter?) Al Sharpton on this one???

[SgtToadette 59]

You can't act like the officer should operate with the same level of discretion on an offense which is legally equivalent to a felony as he would with a simple traffic violation. The the LE in LEO stands for law enforcement, and we should hate the game not the player. Imagine the horror if police officers were granted discretion with felonies. It's a stupid law, but it's a law nonetheless and if we don't like it we should fight it, not lay blame on the officer who by chance was involved.