illy 1 Posted October 29, 2014 As part of the bail reform legislation recently passed there will be a ballot question allowing the State Constitution to be amended. Below is the language being changed/added in this constitutional amendment question. The part in brackets is in the NJ Constitution now, and will be replaced by the text after that. Why this is relevant to gun owners is that the details of which defendants can be held without bail is yet to be determined. We're basically giving the legislature carte blanche to deny certain people the right to bail. Anyone doubt that the wording "protect the safety of any other person or the community" will apply to anyone charged under our ridiculous gun laws? Hell, some judge might even feel that gun owners, no matter the charge, are especially dangerous and therefore ineligible for release on bail. Here's a pretty good summary of the questions- http://www.lwvnj.org/images/voting/2014_BallotQs.pdf http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/SCR/128_I1.HTM PROPOSED AMENDMENT Amend Article I, paragraph 11 to read as follows: 11. No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be [bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great] eligible for pretrial release. Pretrial release may be denied to a person if the court finds that no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions of pretrial release, or combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions would reasonably assure the person’s appearance in court when required, or protect the safety of any other person or the community, or prevent the person from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to establish by law procedures, terms, and conditions applicable to pretrial release and the denial thereof authorized under this provision. (cf: Art. I, par. 11) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
s8n 14 Posted October 29, 2014 As part of the bail reform legislation recently passed there will be a ballot question allowing the State Constitution to be amended. Below is the language being changed/added in this constitutional amendment question. The part in brackets is in the NJ Constitution now, and will be replaced by the text after that. Why this is relevant to gun owners is that the details of which defendants can be held without bail is yet to be determined. We're basically giving the legislature carte blanche to deny certain people the right to bail. Anyone doubt that the wording "protect the safety of any other person or the community" will apply to anyone charged under our ridiculous gun laws? Hell, some judge might even feel that gun owners, no matter the charge, are especially dangerous and therefore ineligible for release on bail. This was my first thought also... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kwadz 11 Posted October 29, 2014 I had the same feeling about this as soon as I saw it. I was ranting to my wife last night about how dangerous this could be for the collective "us" in the 2A community. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted October 29, 2014 Some more in depth information on the subject.http://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Pretrial_Detention_Amendment,_Public_Question_No._1_(2014) Given recent history, I will say it is bound to pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted October 29, 2014 Nappen has said the same thing. This is potentially dangerous for us as gun owners. It's typical NJ vague language so that the powers that be can interpret it anyway they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted October 29, 2014 Stole this from someone who posted on NJ2AS FB Page People who support the 2A should be against Public Question #1. Here’s a quick and dirty on why: 1. Innocent until proven guilty has NO meaning if you can be arbitrarily jailed before trial. It’s that simple, and that inconvenient. This goes to the core of our justice system. 2. The Amendment will not let ANYONE out of jail. The Amendment only serves to allow a change to the Constitution to allow anyone to be kept IN jail before trial. The potential for policy creep here is enormous. (FYI - letting poor drug criminals out of jail can be done RIGHT NOW, no new law needed, and especially no change in the Constitution required!). 3. The Amendment is not limited to “some.” That is a LIE. The amendment allows ANYONE to be denied bail, for any reason! And it will end up being people Democrats and reactionaries in Trenton decide they don’t like – and that includes 2A supporters! Believe that. Or that some unelected failed lawyer/washed-up politician decides he doesn’t like. 4. The Star Ledger is all for it – and very against gun owners. Should tell you all you need to know there. 5. Vehement anti-gunners like Sweeny and Prieto are for it. That should be a wake-up call right there. 2A supporters are against it. Seeing a pattern here? 6. This was rushed through at the 11th hour after some serious Trenton back-room politicking. Deals were made – mostly by anti-gun Democrats – deals we don’t know about, but that most certainly don’t protect 2A or individual rights. It’s not called Nazi Jersey for nothing. 7. Hard Core Democrats like Ron Rice, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, are very much against this. So are consistent conservatives. When you get an alliance like that on a Constitutional issue, it should tell you something. Only Statists support this, and they are no friend to 2A. 8. Supporting this is giving the State a blank check to OWN YOU, once any cop signs any complaint against you. Sure you can fight it from jail – good luck with that. 9. This Amendment is a public policy and civil rights disaster – and you should VOTE NO and implore everyone you know, love and care about to do the same. VOTE NO one Public Question No. 1! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gunguy1960 2 Posted October 29, 2014 Questions should be answered NO. Really dangerous losers are kept with high bail, plus nobody in their circle has deep pockets , the devil is in the details, this democrat plan would actually reduce people being kept in jail, and the other question involves more taxes in a state which just ranked worse of all states in terms of taxes, ballot questions are for special interests , vote no on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYMetsFan86 9 Posted October 29, 2014 Yea ill be voting a NO on this one. who comes up with this crap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TR20 47 Posted October 29, 2014 My thoughts exactly... Who comes up with all the BS ways to hamper (read screw) legal gun owners? They must have an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters pecking away non stop! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted October 29, 2014 Voting no on both questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
almiz111 26 Posted November 2, 2014 Agreed to 2x NO. Christie and ACLU seem to like #1 but they can F off. The part helpng a drug user with no bail dough is ok. But the judge locking up any body for any reason is crap. You have stupid laws and innocent citizen mistakes and ahole judges and your ass is in jail before you are convicted of anything. Somebody say AMEN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted November 3, 2014 Anthony mentioned this on today's GFH podcast. Definitely voting "No." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted November 3, 2014 You guys are adorable, you think your vote matters. Its NJ, I'll be shocked if this doesn't pass because who doesn't want to be "tough on crime"? It should be noted that it was the conservative side of the isle that started that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted November 3, 2014 Voting no on both questions. Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted November 3, 2014 Questions should be answered NO. Really dangerous losers are kept with high bail, plus nobody in their circle has deep pockets , the devil is in the details, this democrat plan would actually reduce people being kept in jail, and the other question involves more taxes in a state which just ranked worse of all states in terms of taxes, ballot questions are for special interests , vote no on them. There are no additional taxes being proposed on the 2nd question. Its just shuffling existing money to areas that need more attention. I'll be voting yes to help keep out more mini malls, McMansion developments from gobbling up farmland and other open areas.Also helps maintain historic culture, wildlife areas, parks and cleanup some of the dumps in this state. Got to try and save some of the good thats still in this state. fuck that 1st question but it will pass unfortunatly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted November 3, 2014 There are no additional taxes being proposed on the 2nd question. Its just shuffling existing money to areas that need more attention. I'll be voting yes to help keep out more mini malls, McMansion developments from gobbling up farmland and other open areas.Also helps maintain historic culture, wildlife areas, parks and cleanup some of the dumps in this state. Got to try and save some of the good thats still in this state. fuck that 1st question but it will pass unfortunatly. Sorry boss but that's BS logic. If they take money from something else they sure as hell don't reduce any other programs. So they end up increasing your taxes. Period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 510 Posted November 3, 2014 This amendment will pass but it' won't be the law. Just like "justifiable need" the AG or NJSP will pass regulations that clarify who will be kept in jail pre trial and for what charges. This will be codified in the NJAC and will become the law the judges follow. I guarantee it will list "possession of a firearm", "assault weapons", hollow point bullets" and lots of other gun related crimes on the "don't let them out" list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted November 3, 2014 This amendment will pass but it' won't be the law. Just like "justifiable need" the AG or NJSP will pass regulations that clarify who will be kept in jail pre trial and for what charges. This will be codified in the NJAC and will become the law the judges follow. I guarantee it will list "possession of a firearm", "assault weapons", hollow point bullets" and lots of other gun related crimes on the "don't let them out" list. FWIW NJSP may provide input for NJAC but they don't write it. That blame is mostly the AG. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 510 Posted November 3, 2014 FWIW NJSP may provide input for NJAC but they don't write it. That blame is mostly the AG. I have no idea who writes the stuff behind the scenes. NJAC 13:54 - the definition of "justfiable need" was first proposed in the NJ Register by the NJSP and is re-adopted by the NJSP every 7 years. So whoever writes it, the NJSP does propose and adopt some of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted November 4, 2014 With all due respect to all NJ 2A organizations, I got ZERO emails about this issue and what YES or NO means. In fact, I get more emails from CA 2A organizations than NJ ones. Only ones I see from NJ are - Pay dues, Pay for training. Thats it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted November 4, 2014 i got some, from some Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,296 Posted November 5, 2014 The question passed. Not sure of the margin, but it had bipartisan support. Christie and the ACLU backed it, and I doubt they've ever agreed on much before. It doesn't take effect until 2017. It still makes me uncomfortable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites