SAPPA

Second Amendment Preservation and Protection Act (SAPPA)

866 posts in this topic

Hello Fellow Forum Members,

This is my first posting. I just signed up this morning after being told that our March 28, 2015 meeting was being discussed in the forums.

There is much to tell about what SAPPA is and what we are doing.  A visit to our web page which is being sponsored by www.tpath.org will give you much of what you need to know.  http://www.tpath.org/sappa-downloads.html

 

Our staff has been working for almost two years on a new legal effort never before tried.  The legal members who have put this plan together are convinced that if the brief reaches the ultimate court, the unconstitutional gun laws not just here in NJ but across the country will be set to flame.

 

We can't give you more information on the legal aspect, beyond what we have posted on the web page referenced above.  If you think after reading those documents that you or any of your friends  would like to participate and assist this effort please sign up here   http://www.tpath.org/sappa-sign-up-page.html   

 

Please understand that there is no cost to joining our effort.  There will be no dues. We have thus far paid for all costs in preparing this SAPPA effort.  We intend to continue that.  All we need from those who wish to join is that your heart and soul is dedicated to the Bill of Rights in general and  specifically, the 2nd Amendment.  Your Party affiliation is of no concern to us. 

 

We were told that our meeting of March 28, 2015 in central Jersey has been discussed in this forum.  We are pleased and proud to announce the meeting is set.  It will begin at 10:00AM and run about 2 hours (breakfast, brunch or lunch. Your choice).  The exact location is not being posted on the web pages, for obvious reasons.  If you are interested in attending you must sign up on the link above.  You will be contacted with an invitation via email with all the meeting information.

 

Finally, if you do choose to come to the meeting, be prepared to be amazed at our game plan.  This plan has been broken into what we are calling the Three Phases of SAPPA.  The Phase I involved months of research and preparation of legal documents.  Phase II is comprised of 2 parts, the first of those two is complete, the upcoming meeting is the culmination of Part II of Phase II.  Phase III will be the legal action and the publicity effort.

 

Remember that while you must be on our guest list to access the meeting you may bring other guests with you once you have been invited.  Please let us know how many.  The purpose for the guest list is two fold.  We need to know who those attending are, to the best we can, and also so we can have the proper amount of material prepared for the number of persons attending.

 

Please feel free to contact me > sappatpath@gmail.com  or tpath@1791.com

Thanks

Dwight (TPATH) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a bit of confusion here.  I saw that some of our members are planning an "Applied to be Denied"  meeting to prepare to take on NJ's

absurd "justifiable need" provision.  In case anyone hasn't yet noticed, I've been shouting about the duplication of effort that I'm seeing, and how

we would be stronger if we were unified.  To that end, I contacted Dwight (the OP on this thread), who is one of the organizers of the SAPPA project, to inform him of our efforts, and to see if we could combine forces.

 

Coincidentally, both meetings are scheduled for Saturday, 3/28, which I believe led Dwight to assume that our discussion of a meeting on that date

was referring to that of his organization.  For those who take the time to investigate, I think they will find that SAPPA is a carefully researched,

well-thought out plan.  I would respectfully suggest that we might be better served by throwing our efforts into that, rather than starting

a separate endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Old Glock guy,

The fact that both of these meetings have been scheduled for central NJ and on the same date is quite the coincidence.  

A couple of things about your reply to our SAPPA post.

1. Thanks for your kind words concerning our effort.  

2. There is absolutely no reason for us not to join forces.  I have already spoken to another of our organizers and he is thrilled with the concept.

3. Not wanting to post too much information on this forum or our SAPPA web pages on details of our campaign, it is okay for us to let you know we are including in our legal brief people who have been turned down for carry permits as a result of the arbitrary and unconstitutional requirement to provide need.  Some of those people we have been working with are retired police officers who live in NJ but were on the job in other states, but none the less, have been denied.

4. Please contact me at sappatpath@gmail.com or tpath@1791.com  so we can get you more information on our plans.  We can then exchange phone numbers if you want.

 

And finally on the applied but denied front, we have not asked people to apply in order to be added to our denied list.  Being denied for any reason may hurt any future efforts here in NJ or other states.  Also, those who have been denied and want to help in our campaign will not be included in any "class action" lawsuit.  What we will need from them is information concerning the judges, administrators or police chiefs who were involved with or made those bad rulings.  That information and those adjudicators will be included in an exhibit as defendants in our federal brief.  More information on this if you request.

 

Thanks again Glock Guy.  Hope to hear from you soon.

Dwight

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked through the SAPPA documents and I'm a little lost.  Is the pdf document a proposed bill or just a document that's talking about what a proposed bill might include?

 

It starts out with "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and the General Assembly"  which sounds like it's supposed to be a bill.  

 

But then, it includes language like: "This “bill” totally nullifies and deletes subsection..."   That's not how bills are written.  Bills don't "totally nullify".  A bill that deletes an existing section of law does so by deleting it - by literally crossing that section out.  When a bill creates new language, that language is inserted in brackets.  A bill that amends current law is just a copy of the current law with some parts crossed out and some new language inserted in brackets. 

 

So, you can seem my confusion - is this a bill or is this a document talking about a bill?

 

There are other issues too. 

 

The overall theme seems to be to stop NJ from infringing on 2A rights and it has long elegant preambles all about the constitution.   But after it says NJ can't infringe, it says that to get a permit to carry we'll need to submit fingerprints in duplicate, 3 letters of reference, and proof of training?  You can't not infringe by set up a framework for infringement.

 

Some parts just don't make sense to me.   NJ won't be able to confiscate weapons of the deceased.  When there is no heir who can receive the firearm "Said individual will either transfer said firearm(s) to a licensed party (Firearms ID) or a licensed dealer".   What "said party"?  The dead guy or the non existent heir?

 

Finally, I'll leave you with a quote from the definitions section:  This is an exact quote - cut and pasted from the PDF with no editing.

 

"Definitions -
“Firearm” handgun, revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun pump (18”length) or semi-automatic, rifle; (bolt, and/or semi-automatic) regardless of characteristic or caliber size."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MG,
The campaign we are working on is comprised of three phases. We have intentionally left out some very important information because it relates to our strategy.

The SAPPA legislation we have produced, while it would be great if it were passed, we know it would never leave a Democrat controlled committee. And while it is complete and workable it has zero chance of going anywhere as of this time.
The SAPPA bill is a tool we are using to monitor politicians and their desire to help get the laws in NJ changed.

That of course will never happen because the state courts, the District Court and the 3rd Circuit courts have all supported this illegal law making.

That is where the Federal Brief and our never before tired legal tactic, if it is heard by the US Supreme Court, can not lose.
If you want more information call me at (xxx xxx xxxx withheld for open forum) (Say DK pick up, when machine answers) I'll tell you then all you need to know to understand our plans.

Or email me at tpath@1791.com or sappatpath@gmail.com

Also if you want to be kept informed on what we are doing, when you email me, ask to be put into our contact list.

Also, at the March 28 meeting all our plans will be made known to selected conference groups.

Regards,
Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked through the SAPPA documents and I'm a little lost.  Is the pdf document a proposed bill or just a document that's talking about what a proposed bill might include?

 

It starts out with "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and the General Assembly"  which sounds like it's supposed to be a bill.  

 

But then, it includes language like: "This “bill” totally nullifies and deletes subsection..."   That's not how bills are written.  Bills don't "totally nullify".  A bill that deletes an existing section of law does so by deleting it - by literally crossing that section out.  When a bill creates new language, that language is inserted in brackets.  A bill that amends current law is just a copy of the current law with some parts crossed out and some new language inserted in brackets. 

 

So, you can seem my confusion - is this a bill or is this a document talking about a bill?

 

There are other issues too. 

 

The overall theme seems to be to stop NJ from infringing on 2A rights and it has long elegant preambles all about the constitution.   But after it says NJ can't infringe, it says that to get a permit to carry we'll need to submit fingerprints in duplicate, 3 letters of reference, and proof of training?  You can't not infringe by set up a framework for infringement.

 

Some parts just don't make sense to me.   NJ won't be able to confiscate weapons of the deceased.  When there is no heir who can receive the firearm "Said individual will either transfer said firearm(s) to a licensed party (Firearms ID) or a licensed dealer".   What "said party"?  The dead guy or the non existent heir?

 

Finally, I'll leave you with a quote from the definitions section:  This is an exact quote - cut and pasted from the PDF with no editing.

 

"Definitions -

“Firearm” handgun, revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun pump (18”length) or semi-automatic, rifle; (bolt, and/or semi-automatic) regardless of characteristic or caliber size."

That part is unacceptable to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fellow Forum Members,

This is my first posting. I just signed up this morning after being told that our March 28, 2015 meeting was being discussed in the forums.

There is much to tell about what SAPPA is and what we are doing.  A visit to our web page which is being sponsored by www.tpath.org will give you much of what you need to know.  http://www.tpath.org/sappa-downloads.html

 

Our staff has been working for almost two years on a new legal effort never before tried.  The legal members who have put this plan together are convinced that if the brief reaches the ultimate court, the unconstitutional gun laws not just here in NJ but across the country will be set to flame.

 

We can't give you more information on the legal aspect, beyond what we have posted on the web page referenced above.  If you think after reading those documents that you or any of your friends  would like to participate and assist this effort please sign up here   http://www.tpath.org/sappa-sign-up-page.html   

 

Please understand that there is no cost to joining our effort.  There will be no dues. We have thus far paid for all costs in preparing this SAPPA effort.  We intend to continue that.  All we need from those who wish to join is that your heart and soul is dedicated to the Bill of Rights in general and  specifically, the 2nd Amendment.  Your Party affiliation is of no concern to us. 

 

We were told that our meeting of March 28, 2015 in central Jersey has been discussed in this forum.  We are pleased and proud to announce the meeting is set.  It will begin at 10:00AM and run about 2 hours (breakfast, brunch or lunch. Your choice).  The exact location is not being posted on the web pages, for obvious reasons.  If you are interested in attending you must sign up on the link above.  You will be contacted with an invitation via email with all the meeting information.

 

Finally, if you do choose to come to the meeting, be prepared to be amazed at our game plan.  This plan has been broken into what we are calling the Three Phases of SAPPA.  The Phase I involved months of research and preparation of legal documents.  Phase II is comprised of 2 parts, the first of those two is complete, the upcoming meeting is the culmination of Part II of Phase II.  Phase III will be the legal action and the publicity effort.

 

Remember that while you must be on our guest list to access the meeting you may bring other guests with you once you have been invited.  Please let us know how many.  The purpose for the guest list is two fold.  We need to know who those attending are, to the best we can, and also so we can have the proper amount of material prepared for the number of persons attending.

 

Please feel free to contact me > sappatpath@gmail.com  or tpath@1791.com

Thanks

Dwight (TPATH) 

Greetings fellow forum member with ZERO posts!

 

          I think you need to be a bit more transparent about your agenda if you expect members of this community to follow your lead! This board has many intelligent and educated members who were not born

as snakes and will not simply follow a pied piper!  If you want our support, don't play games like some stupid infomercial "Don't change the channel, we have the secret to cure all diseases but you have to attend our

free seminar to hear the truth that Doctors refuse to tell you".  This is how you sound to me! Popping in here with a meeting on the same day in the same area with an agenda you refuse to explain. It's never been tried

before. it can't lose, it's new and improved! Give me a break!

 

          PM me the details so I can make an intelligent decision on whether to join you or not! I would also like to know the number of attendees that have committed to your meeting and more about the strange coincidence of the same cause, same date, same area! Really, a coincidence???? If you would be a bit more forthcoming you might find us a bit more receptive!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize the restoring our rights in NJ will require compromise (unless the courts uphold the constitution) but I agree,  I don't want to start out offering such a compromise.

no. compromising is how we got into this shit state of affairs we're in now. it's time for THEM to compromise on OUR terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. compromising is how we got into this shit state of affairs we're in now. it's time for THEM to compromise on OUR terms.

 

I get it.  In my dreams we tar and feather them all for violating the constitution and our civil rights. (by the way, I edited that down two notches to tar and feather).  But they took our rights piece by piece.  We'll probably end up getting them back that way.

 

But, if we can actually win some court challenges, it can happen in bigger steps.  This is a big part of why I'm ready to do this.  That, plus I just want to p. off Weinberg, Sweeney, Mainor, and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings fellow forum member with ZERO posts!

 

          I think you need to be a bit more transparent about your agenda if you expect members of this community to follow your lead! This board has many intelligent and educated members who were not born

as snakes and will not simply follow a pied piper!  If you want our support, don't play games like some stupid infomercial "Don't change the channel, we have the secret to cure all diseases but you have to attend our

free seminar to hear the truth that Doctors refuse to tell you".  This is how you sound to me! Popping in here with a meeting on the same day in the same area with an agenda you refuse to explain. It's never been tried

before. it can't lose, it's new and improved! Give me a break!

 

          PM me the details so I can make an intelligent decision on whether to join you or not! I would also like to know the number of attendees that have committed to your meeting and more about the strange coincidence of the same cause, same date, same area! Really, a coincidence???? If you would be a bit more forthcoming you might find us a bit more receptive!!!!

You're wrong

 

Everybody has different ideas of "what good for NJ" in regard to gun laws, posting up every section of the agenda, without the ability to discuss it, will start a mini war on the site and the entire idea will get flushed down the drain. 

 

I moved back to NJ 12 years ago and I have to say this state has the highest population of jerks I've ever had the displeasure of meeting or just watching. Too many people are ready to shoot off their mouths and close their ears, thats NOT having a conversation.

 

I mentioned above I disagree with some of the things mentioned in the proposal. What I did not say (because to me its common sense) was I want a discussion on the subject so both sides understand the other, and regardless of the outcome, we will agree to move forward. We need to keep the end goal in mind, which is giving law abiding citizens the Rights that the state has taken away, and we will be able to stand together and get it done.

 

One more "common sense" gun law is NOT going to fix a thing - thugs and bad guys DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!! Too many here do not understand that fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

Sure is super reading all the comments and knowing there are so many good people out there.  

The one comment I saw most was the one about our group needing to be more transparent.  This is understandable.  But by keeping the details of our plan out of the reach of the general public it has prevented any preemptive strikes or preparations by the enemy. (I use this word loosely) 

 

We have of course had many volunteers working on both Phase I and Phase II and only a few knew of the ultimate plan.  We understand that the only way for 10 people to keep a secret is if 9 of them are dead.  But having said that, the meeting of March 28th, we will be divulging everything.  All our legal paperwork is complete, briefs and exhibits are just about final.  Many comfortable legislators will be getting a not so nice surprise, very soon.

 

If any of you would like to read my last article on thissubject and see some things you may not be aware of, please jump to the article here.

http://www.tpath.org/a-bridge-to-the-right-side.html

 

Thanks again everyone. I'm proud to be a new member in this great community.

Dwight

 

Again, please contact me any time at sappatpath@gmail.com or tpath@1791.com if you have any questions or suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very strange and coincidental that SAPPA all of a sudden pops up and is conducting a meeting on the same day as the "apply to deny meeting"??? Can anyone that has a credible reputation with NJGF vouch for this person that he is indeed a firearms enthusiast? Or even members of NJR&PC where he claims verify this guy? I don't mean to sound rude towards someone helping the cause but this is pretty deep stuff with a lot of verbal judo for it to all of a sudden pop up and nobody at least to this point knows this guy or his agenda. Members of this forum have been on the same page and working towards a concealed carry answer, I'd hate to see it getting derailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very strange and coincidental that SAPPA all of a sudden pops up and is conducting a meeting on the same day as the "apply to deny meeting"??? Can anyone that has a credible reputation with NJGF vouch for this person that he is indeed a firearms enthusiast? 

 

I believe that my reputation here is credible.  While I do not know the OP personally, from emailed blogs I have seen from him over the past couple of

years, I know him to be a staunch defender of the Constitution in general, and of the Second Amendment in particular.  I received word of his SAPPA

project a couple of months ago, and assumed that others here had heard of it.  If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have been

shouting about duplication of effort on CCW for quite some time.

 

Finally, when I saw the NJ Gun Forums efforts coming together, I contacted Dwight to advise him that this group had no knowledge of his efforts,

so I recommended that he post something here.  Since our group has many questions about how to proceed with this quite worthy endeavor,

and since SAPPA has already done a lot of the legwork, I would respectfully suggest that we hear what they have to say and consider uniting

our efforts with theirs.  I realize that some do not agree with all of it.  That's why they are having a meeting on 3/18, to talk things out.

 

This meeting was scheduled well before ours.  (If people are interested, I can figure out how to forward or post emails I have received on this.)

I believe their withholding of some information is not a matter of being devious, but of shielding some of their strategies from our adversaries.

Feel free to post here or to pm me, or just go straight to Dwight, as he has suggested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

For sure I understand anyone who might have a question as to who I am and what I and my group stand for.

 

In our several different efforts over the past 7 years we have had to be careful who we were allowing into our groups.

Besides working for the Bill of Rights I have founded another group we call WPE. (We Plan to Endure)  If you want to see what we are doing in that organization please visit our web pages here >>>http://www.tpath.org/wpe.html  The reason I bring this up is consistant with our needs to be sure whom we permit access to.  Several years ago two gentlemen asked to join our group.  It appeared that one of them had some association with one of the best Tea PArty groups here in NJ.  So we invited them to a meeting. They seemed okay.  Mostly sat and listened.  

Then on the third meeting  one of them pulled me aside and asked if I knew where to get him some handguns.  For sure I didn't know if he really wanted weapons or if he was trying to set us up.  Either way, both he and his buddy were escorted out.  We took a vote not to report him.  Not sure if that was right or not. But we didn't.

 

By the way, my CJR&PC membership number is 6586.  

 

And thanks to Glock Guy.  He pretty much explained how we came to find the NJGUNFORUM. 

One more bit of information.  If you visit our website  www.tpath.org  you will find years of commentary and articles.  

 

Also, Mr. Nicholas Purpura, our legal eagle and the author of our legislation and the brief we are about to file is the guy who gave a rousing speech to the NJ legislature several years ago. I'm told it got almost a million hits on u-tube.  Don't know that for sure, last I looked last year there were 250 thousand.

 

If anyone still has any questions, please send me an email at tpath@1791.com  and we can trade phone numbers.

 

Regards,

Dwight

and

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked through the SAPPA documents and I'm a little lost.  Is the pdf document a proposed bill or just a document that's talking about what a proposed bill might include?

 

It starts out with "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and the General Assembly"  which sounds like it's supposed to be a bill.  

 

But then, it includes language like: "This “bill” totally nullifies and deletes subsection..."   That's not how bills are written.  Bills don't "totally nullify".  A bill that deletes an existing section of law does so by deleting it - by literally crossing that section out.  When a bill creates new language, that language is inserted in brackets.  A bill that amends current law is just a copy of the current law with some parts crossed out and some new language inserted in brackets. 

 

So, you can seem my confusion - is this a bill or is this a document talking about a bill?

 

There are other issues too. 

 

The overall theme seems to be to stop NJ from infringing on 2A rights and it has long elegant preambles all about the constitution.   But after it says NJ can't infringe, it says that to get a permit to carry we'll need to submit fingerprints in duplicate, 3 letters of reference, and proof of training?  You can't not infringe by set up a framework for infringement.

 

Some parts just don't make sense to me.   NJ won't be able to confiscate weapons of the deceased.  When there is no heir who can receive the firearm "Said individual will either transfer said firearm(s) to a licensed party (Firearms ID) or a licensed dealer".   What "said party"?  The dead guy or the non existent heir?

 

Finally, I'll leave you with a quote from the definitions section:  This is an exact quote - cut and pasted from the PDF with no editing.

 

"Definitions -

“Firearm” handgun, revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun pump (18”length) or semi-automatic, rifle; (bolt, and/or semi-automatic) regardless of characteristic or caliber size."

 

 

Just finished reading them, and I am 100% with you on this. The contents put forth seem to largely be the equivalent of an NRA questionnaire or similar and ammount to a meandering screed going on about liberal or conservative and the second amendment followed up by getting someone to say "with us" or against us on the subject. 

 

The only bits that might rise above that are that it gets into the issues of oaths to hold office, and perhaps traps them into picking a side on the issue of burdening the law abiding. 

 

In a utopia of legal logic, you might be able to go down the road of a RICO lawsuit for conspiracy. That'd be kind of rough. You also, in an ideal world, would be able to go back to the NJ constitution, the oath to hold office, and the guarantee in the constitution to defense of oneself. ("All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. ") A premeditated effort to deny that should be enough to kick someone out, but this i NJ, and it won't be. 

 

More realistically, it sounds like a fishing expedition for a privileges and immunities case. Which SCOTUS has pretty much stated that although they think the current legal status of that clause is BS, they weren't about to touch it as it would leave courts everywhere with a century of cases to retry, so suck it up and never speak of such things again. (I'm paraphrasing here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized i cant make your meeting. I think the timing will be too tight to get back and set up in time for ours. I am sure we will all cross paths again soon and hopefully work together if our philosophies on this meshes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Dwight & Nick,

 

Thank you for introducing yourselves. I admire the work you've done and the passion you have for helping bring NJ firearm laws more in line the majority of the United States.

 

Old Glock Guy does have an established and credible reputation on this forum. While you are one of the newest members of this forum I do agree with OGG that we should unite and work together.

 

While you may be one of the newest to this particular forum what is evident is your passion and the work you've already done. What I, and others, should realize is that while you and I (and everyone else on this forum) are new to one another that our cause is one and the same. We need to but aside petty jelousies of who is more credible or established due to time spent on internet forums.

 

Instead of viewing Dwight and Nick as attempting to hijack "our idea/cause" we should realize we are allies who are new to one another that share a common cause. Instead of squabbling about both our groups meeting at the same time/place we should view it as the opportunity it is. How often do people say on this forum "IF ONLY we could find other like minded people maybe we could get something done!" Well, here they are. HERE are other like minded people! Let us view it as the gift it is instead of an obstacle.

 

With that said, I would like to join both groups this Saturday to listen and learn hiw we can help each other. I am very much looking forward to meeting everyone. Let this be the beginning that many have hoped for.

 

Regards,

 

Glen(injersey)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Glenn,

Well thought out and well presented points of view.

A few points I would like to make.  Even though I was lucky enough to have been just recently informed about this forum and that my group and I may appear as nubies to some, our efforts are far from nubile.  I referenced earlier that having been running www.tpath.org for over 7 years now, there is a very imprssive record to be seen relating to our writers and contributors and even myself.  Many hundreds of positions, articles and commentaries can be found there.  Most of them have been converted to PDF format for easy downloading and printing.

 

Also, over these past years, even though I am retired and have what they call a limited and fixed income, I have personally paid for the TPATH website and our server and you will never see a pop up ad on our site.  We deal in information with, hopefully, a slightly entertaining bent, but are interested only in getting people informed and active.

 

Having been involved with several Tea Party groups here in NJ for over 8 years and having helped many others get up and organized I have seen lots of "toe stepping" and defensive maneuvering by those being stepped on.  I have always left that stuff to those who wish to partake in it.  WHile I see it going on from time to time, I rarely, if ever devote any effort in it.   My sole desire is to right legislative wrongs and to get this state and this country headed back to where it was when my Dad left it to me.  Then, maybe I can get my slice fixed and put an end those dastardly 3 putts.

 

Glen, I'm so looking forward to meeting you and the many other great Americans who have decided to join our effort.  We just finished the final editing of our 70 page lawsuit.  As I told you before, it is the culmination of over two years of research.  The tract we have taken with this is amazing and I can't wait to share it with everyone.  The mastermind behind this venture is Mr. Nicholas  Purprua.  When you meet him on Saturday you will understand the meaning of the word, passionate.  

 

Thanks again for your very well conceived thoughts,

Warm regards,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you prove me wrong, and if you do I will make amends. But right now SAPPA is vaporware, unsubstantiated promises.

 

"I can't tell you what's in my plan until you drive 150 miles round trip. Maybe not even then. Trust me." 

"I can't tell you which NJ politicians have concealed carry." (Why? Because).

"I can't tell you who this brilliant lawyer is."

 

Reminds me of a famous politician a few years ago who lectured us that "the bill has to pass so we can see what's inside."

 

It astounds me that anybody but a SAPPA would take your proposal seriously, after all the intelligent discussion we've been having about Apply to be Denied, to the point of ceding the meeting time to you. 

 

One more point: The 2nd Amendment and god-given-rights stuff doesn't work in New Jersey. Not with either party, not with the courts as far as the eye can see. The only thing they understand is losing their cushy jobs. And if you were addressing those points at us you're preaching to the choir. "Jesus found the Second Amendment written on a Stone Tablet on the banks of the River Jordan" is not a plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Newtonian, you are a Negative Nellie!  

 

Tell you what I'll do for you.  I've rearranged my work schedule for Saturday so I can make the two

hour round trip to attend the SAPPA meeting.  I'll pay close attention, and report back to you and anyone else on the forum who might be interested.

At that point, you can decide whether or not this is something you are willing to support.

 

To me it seems like a no-brainer.  lf you were willing to meet with a bunch of guys to discuss how to initiate a project similar to this (certainly something

admirable), why not hear from a group that has already done a lot of the legwork?  They're not asking for any money or commitment, just some of

our time to see if we deem their efforts worthy.  I, for one, am eager to hear what they have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems like a no-brainer.  lf you were willing to meet with a bunch of guys to discuss how to initiate a project similar to this (certainly something

admirable), why not hear from a group that has already done a lot of the legwork?  They're not asking for any money or commitment, just some of

our time to see if we deem their efforts worthy.  I, for one, am eager to hear what they have to say.

 

Because there is no information about the actual plan. Having read their info, there seems to be absolutely nothing indicating that it shares much DNA with the apply to be denied plan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, loose lips sink ships. Secrecy wasn't done any differently when this country thrived to have independence was it? I hope their endeavor is successful and for all the arm chair quaterbacks, if they are, I hope you stand at the back of the line with your head hung low in shame.

If they are not, at least they tried. I also kind of recall, they never asked for a dime of your money. So how about cutting them some slack instead of being out right negative!

:facepalm:

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, loose lips sink ships. Secrecy wasn't done any differently when this country thrived to have independence was it? I hope their endeavor is successful and for all the arm chair quaterbacks, if they are, I hope you stand at the back of the line with your head hung low in shame. If they are not, at least they tried. I also kind of recall, they never asked for a dime of your money. So how about cutting them some slack instead of being out right negative! :facepalm: Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

well said and more polite than I would have said it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By NJGF
      Second Amendment challenge to New York state stun gun ban
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/second-amendment-challenge-to-new-york-state-stun-gun-ban/?utm_term=.8affecbeea72&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1
       
      A law suit was filed that challenges New York's stun gun ban based on second amendment issues.
       
      The filing is here:
      http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/New-York-sued-in-federal-court-over-Taser-ban.pdf
       
      The suit cites Heller, McDonald, and the more recent Caetano v. Massachusetts decision.
       
      If NY falls then maybe NJ will be next.
       
    • By NJGF
      Don Kates, the father of the modern Second Amendment revival, has died
       
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/04/don-kates-the-father-of-the-modern-second-amendment-revival-has-died/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.c54f683896c7
       
      Don wrote “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,” 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983), the first modern article in a major law review arguing for the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
       
    • By JibbaJabba
      http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11186
       
       
      Gun confiscation is one step closer in Connecticut. The mainstream media spins it as “one more chance” for non-compliant gun owners who failed to register their scary guns before the January 1 deadline.
       
      In reality, these letters - 106 to rifle owners, and 108 more to residents with standard capacity magazines – are the first step in the Connecticut State Police beginning to round up guns arbitrarily made illegal last year in that state. These guns include America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15 and magazines over 10 rounds, which include the standard capacity magazines made for that America’s favorite rifle.
       
      Failure to register is now a felony now in Connecticut.
       
      How long will it be before there is bloodshed over this law? We’re not sure, but we’re confident it is coming unless the law is rescinded or struck down by the courts.
       
      Mike Vanderboegh of the edgy Sipsey Street Irregulars released an open letter a couple of weeks ago, warning of what’s coming to Connecticut. The Connecticut State Police aren’t listening. Yet.
       
      We suspect attitudes may change after the first few rounds of bloodshed.
       
      As it stands right now, the best estimates are that 4% of newly-regulated guns and magazines in The Nutmeg State have been registered, leaving a hundred thousand or more newly classified potential felons looking over their shoulder.
       
      Editor’s note: We’re not going to link to the article because they are hiding most of the content behind a paywall and we won’t drive thousands of readers to their website.
       
      One more chance for gun owners
       
      Posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35 pm | Updated: 3:36 pm, Mon Feb 24, 2014.
       
      Manchester, CT (Journal Inquirer) – When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut.
       
      The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally.
       
      But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines.
       
      This entry was posted on February 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
       
      -------------------------------
      100 letters don't seem like much, but it might be their strategy to tackle a little at a time when it comes to the overall 100k non-compliant gun owners. I'm giving strong consideration to the idea of making future purchases outside state lines.
    • By Kerouac32
      http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?&pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57566014&feed_id=35&nb_splitPage=3
       
      I think this is the most chilling part:
      "This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today."
      Honestly it's a bit interesting he mentioned the UN who I'm pretty sure the president is alright with handing over rights to.
    • By ChrisJM981
      After looking through all the bills in the Senate Law and Public Safety I compiled a list of proposed bills for the 2012-2013 Legislative Session that affect firearm owners in NJ. I believe all are just renumbered for the new Legislative Session.
       
      Support:
       
      S104 Revises procedures for securing a permit to carry a handgun.
      Law and Public Safety
      http://www.njleg.sta...0500/104_I1.PDF
       
      Cardinale, Gerald as Primary Sponsor
      Oroho, Steven V. as Primary Sponsor
      Bucco, Anthony R. as Co-Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S269 Revises procedures for securing a permit to carry a handgun.
      http://www.njleg.sta...0500/269_I1.PDF
       
      Doherty, Michael J. as Primary Sponsor
      O'Toole, Kevin J. as Primary Sponsor
      Oroho, Steven V. as Co-Sponsor
      Bucco, Anthony R. as Co-Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S707 The "New Jersey Right to Home Defense Law."
      http://www.njleg.sta...1000/707_I1.PDF
       
      O'Toole, Kevin J. as Primary Sponsor
      Bucco, Anthony R. as Co-Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S1627 Eliminates prohibition against purchasing more than one handgun in calendar month.
      http://www.njleg.sta...000/1627_I1.PDF
       
      Oroho, Steven V. as Primary Sponsor
      Doherty, Michael J. as Co-Sponsor
      2/16/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S1737 Provides two-year window for persons to transfer, render inoperable or surrender assault firearm.
      http://www.njleg.sta...000/1737_I1.PDF
       
      Bucco, Anthony R. as Primary Sponsor
      3/5/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      Fight:
       
      S419 Revises qualifications and requirements for permits to carry handgun; establishes annual fee of $100.
      Law and Public Safety
      http://www.njleg.sta...0500/419_I1.PDF
       
      Van Drew, Jeff as Primary Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S657 Requires proof of firearms safety training as a condition for issuance of firearms purchaser ID cards and permits to purchase handguns.
      http://www.njleg.sta...1000/657_I1.PDF
       
      Stack, Brian P. as Primary Sponsor
      Cunningham, Sandra B. as Primary Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S810 Clarifies that "airsoft" guns are firearms
      http://www.njleg.sta...1000/810_I1.PDF
       
      Smith, Bob as Primary Sponsor
      Scutari, Nicholas P. as Co-Sponsor
      1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
      S1278 Establishes "gun-free" and "weapon free" zones around certain school and public properties.
      http://www.njleg.sta...500/1278_I1.PDF
       
      Turner, Shirley K. as Primary Sponsor
      1/30/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S1705 Permits municipalities to establish weapons free zones around schools and public facilities
      http://www.njleg.sta...000/1705_I1.PDF
       
      Rice, Ronald L. as Primary Sponsor
      2/27/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
       
       
      S2178 Revises definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater
      http://www.njleg.sta...500/2178_I1.PDF
       
      Lesniak, Raymond J. as Primary Sponsor
      9/20/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.