Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thats why you hardly, if ever, hear any of Antis say they are against Constitution or against 2nd Amendment.  They always proclaim they fully support Constitution, are in favor of Second Amendment........... Every judicial ruling always includes verbiage around how they "love" Constitution and then turns around claims 2A is reserved for someone other than normal joe or only at home or...whatever.. 

 

Remember, even Nazi's claimed their love for their country, constitution, how they are "duty bound" to eliminate "criminals" and "low lifes" off the society for "larger benefit of People". All the while making so called laws that would criminalize and marginalize any population that doesn't fit the agenda. 

 

And thats exactly whats happening here. 

doesn't matter what their words say. what matters is their actions. dude's onto something with his idea of charging them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its way beyond time we start using every law on the books to start fighting back,   For example on STS33 application do questions 21,  25,  and 26 violate the ADA (American with Disabilities Act)  If any of these questions were on a job application I think it would be considered a violation.    Since question 26 compels you surrender your 4th and 5th amendments in order to "obtain" a right is that a violation of some law?    The mental health consent form,   requiring you to surrender your HIPPA** rights in order to "obtain" your constitutional rights?    **  The mental health form might need some clarification from an attorney,   The paragraph "I, __________________________________________________ am aware of my rights under N.J.S.A. 30:4-24.3, and the
Health Insurance Portability and Insurance Accountability Act (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. 164.50, and consent to the disclosure of
my mental health records to the Chief of Police and the Superintendent of State Police, or their designees, for the purpose of
verifying my fi rearms permit application and my fi t ness to own a fi re arm under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. I understand that copies
of this authorization shall be considered sufficient authorization for the release of records.   The way I understand that paragraph is that I consent to a search of any confinement to a Non-Correctional institute as listed under title 30,   NOT a universal waiver of any medical records..   I think that PD's are using this consent as a blanket waiver which I think they should not be.

 

  Its time to start acting like a colony of red fire ants towards the Fifth columnists that have infested the State House in NJ.

 

  Anyway the Politicians in conjunction with their lawyers are probably planning their next move in the event that the courts hear this case. So hopefully Dwight and Nick are planning 10 steps ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its way beyond time we start using every law on the books to start fighting back,   For example on STS33 application do questions 21,  25,  and 26 violate the ADA (American with Disabilities Act)  If any of these questions were on a job application I think it would be considered a violation.    Since question 26 compels you surrender your 4th and 5th amendments in order to "obtain" a right is that a violation of some law?    The mental health consent form,   requiring you to surrender your HIPPA** rights in order to "obtain" your constitutional rights?    ...

 

  Its time to start acting like a colony of red fire ants towards the Fifth columnists that have infested the State House in NJ.

 

  Anyway the Politicians in conjunction with their lawyers are probably planning their next move in the event that the courts hear this case. So hopefully Dwight and Nick are planning 10 steps ahead.

 

If you're going to do that, then I'd be prepared to take it all the way to SCOTUS. And, be prepared to challenge some of the basic NJ State Laws regarding firearms. I can see the authorities lining up and responding to any legal challenges by saying, "There is no state RKBA in NJ".It's totally at our discretion. So do you want a gun or not?" You have to be ready to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal court system and/or SCOTUS that  NJ law violates federal laws and/or 2A.

 

Good luck with that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean our illegal laws? according to the wording of the statutes, firearms are illegal with exceptions and exemptions. that goes directly against the constitution. and i believe there's something somewhere that makes it illegal to pass laws that are against the constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean our illegal laws? according to the wording of the statutes, firearms are illegal with exceptions and exemptions. that goes directly against the constitution. and i believe there's something somewhere that makes it illegal to pass laws that are against the constitution?

 

Correct.  And they (anti's in NJ Govt.) are counting on no one having the time, resources and/or $$$ to challenge them in federal courts, or the political clout to get the legislators voted out of office.  Maybe it's what's needed but it will be a Herculean effort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.  And they (anti's in NJ Govt.) are counting on no one having the time, resources and/or $$$ to challenge them in federal courts, or the political clout to get the legislators voted out of office.  Maybe it's what's needed but it will be Herculean effort!

it would be. they'/re right though. who here has the money/time to take them on? we have lawyers amongst us that might be able to......but i doubt they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

As promised here is the latest on the Brief.

Dwight

 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 - Since our last update Nick has called the Court on several occasions requesting the status of the ruling on the three Motions before the Court. Also, during those calls he asked for confirmation on the Letters Of Record which were recently sent to Judge Shipp.  The court clerk claimed they did not get the latest one Oral Argument Letter of October 29,2015.  This is peculiar because this letter was sent to them US POstal Service High Priority.  That letter is just one of many we have sent to the Judge.  As of this date not one of them has been answered.

 

​As a result it was decided to write yet another letter to Judge Shipp with two objectives.  One is to ask him why he has not responded or requested that the Court Clerk respond to Nick's letters.  The second purpose is to provide US Supreme Court statements and rulings concerning the pro se filings in the Federal Court System.  As you know, it is our  belief  that the delay in rulings may be because either the Court or the Defendants (or both in cahoots- which would be a violation of law) are searching for some technicality that would give the Defendants an out without having to provide a defense for their unconstitutional actions.  See that letter here >>  Letter to Shipp - November (2) 

 

Since the Court Clerk seems to have a difficult time getting to the US Mail INBOX, on this day Wednesday, November 4, 2015  Mr. Purpura made yet another trip to Trenton.  He hand delivered the October letter and this latest one Letter to Shipp-November.  He got a date and time stamp for each from the Court Clerk.

 

Nick has decided that the things going on at that office are pushing the envelope of legality and he is considering requesting an investigation into their activities.  We will keep this log advised as to the nature and procedure of that endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

As promised here is the latest on the Brief.

Dwight

 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 - Since our last update Nick has called the Court on several occasions requesting the status of the ruling on the three Motions before the Court. Also, during those calls he asked for confirmation on the Letters Of Record which were recently sent to Judge Shipp.  The court clerk claimed they did not get the latest one Oral Argument Letter of October 29,2015.  This is peculiar because this letter was sent to them US POstal Service High Priority.  That letter is just one of many we have sent to the Judge.  As of this date not one of them has been answered.

 

​As a result it was decided to write yet another letter to Judge Shipp with two objectives.  One is to ask him why he has not responded or requested that the Court Clerk respond to Nick's letters.  The second purpose is to provide US Supreme Court statements and rulings concerning the pro se filings in the Federal Court System.  As you know, it is our  belief  that the delay in rulings may be because either the Court or the Defendants (or both in cahoots- which would be a violation of law) are searching for some technicality that would give the Defendants an out without having to provide a defense for their unconstitutional actions.  See that letter here >>  Letter to Shipp - November (2) 

 

Since the Court Clerk seems to have a difficult time getting to the US Mail INBOX, on this day Wednesday, November 4, 2015  Mr. Purpura made yet another trip to Trenton.  He hand delivered the October letter and this latest one Letter to Shipp-November.  He got a date and time stamp for each from the Court Clerk.

 

Nick has decided that the things going on at that office are pushing the envelope of legality and he is considering requesting an investigation into their activities.  We will keep this log advised as to the nature and procedure of that endeavor.

thanks for keeping us up to date, and thanks for being the pit bull that won't let em get away man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is crazy. Over a month has passed and no decision? I think Nick is onto something big here. I am excited. Time to donate a few bucks. Anyone able to match me?

 

Happy Veterans Day to all you present and ex service men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

Nick and I took a major step yesterday concerning the ongoing delays and possible collusion between the Defense Counsel and the Court Clerk.

I can't tell you what it is just yet because it needs to fly under the radar until the ball gets rolling on what we have done.

 

In several days I will announce it and will post the documents associated with it. 

 A little hint:  Federal Courts operate under a code that, if crossed, steps MUST be taken.

 

And, as you can imagine, the search for some way for the court to dismiss this case is still ongoing.  This delay is actually and probably good news and Nick tells me that their search will most likely be fruitless.  That is not to say that they will not come up with something, both weak and far fetched.

 

When and if that does occur the SAPPA Group will move into the next step of our long term plan.  We have been convinced now that the local or national news media will continue to ignore this case and that is of course what the defense needs and desires.  To combat this it will be our intention to buy ads on local stations and even newspapers describing what the SAPPA Group is doing.  This will have some fairly heavy costs but it may be the one way we can get this ball rolling in the media.  

 

We have not solicited financial help so far but that might change if we do decide to run some ads.  We are not asking for donations as of now. Heck we may even win this case on the grounds that the defense violated federal rules.  That would allow the Judge to move on and give this headache to some other jurist.  That would be the 3rd Circuit.

 

Okay all, that's the latest.  Stay tuned for the update concerning our latest effort.  Any day now we will be able to describe it.

 

Thanks again for all the moral  support this forum has give us.  Nick and I could never be able to thank you enough.

 

Regards,

Dwight 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all the moral support this forum has give us. Nick and I could never be able to thank you enough.

 

Regards,

Dwight

 

It is Nick and yourself that deserve a heartfelt Thank You from anyone that believes in The Constitution and American Rights, such as myself. Timely news as we officially recognize those brave men and women who fought and continue to fight to keep us free.

 

Nick and Dwight, THANK YOU both for your work!

 

All Veterans and Active Duty, THANK YOU ALL FOR MY FREEDOM!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE more i hear from you guys, the more i think that THIS is a thousand times more effective path than what others are doing. thanks for doing this, and please keep us up to date. i ain't got a lot of money, but i'm in for the ads. media is gonna turn out to be your best weapon if it has to go to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if it would also help for us to write contact the NRA as members, requesting they help.  I'm aware the NRA was notified of this, but maybe some prodding by members will help get them off their butts?  Are there other groups we could include?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if it would also help for us to write contact the NRA as members, requesting they help. I'm aware the NRA was notified of this, but maybe some prodding by members will help get them off their butts? Are there other groups we could include?

They normally don't jump in until the end so they can claim credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been aware of this effort for quite some time. Wasn't sure in the beginning what to make of it. However I have come to realize the significance of it and wanted to chime in and thank you gentlemen for all your efforts. I too would be willing to donate.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been aware of this effort for quite some time. Wasn't sure in the beginning what to make of it. However I have come to realize the significance of it and wanted to chime in and thank you gentlemen for all your efforts. I too would be willing to donate.

Regards

As would I !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

The answer to the question as to if it would help for individual members of the NRA or any Second Amendment organization, is YES!

 

As some of you know Nick and I are members of the CJR&P (Nick for many years more than I).  Nick is a regular speaker at the monthly meetings and provides an update to the members.  President John Scott did all he could do relating to the NRA by writing a personal letter to them.  They did respond but refused to get involved.  They handed John some legal BS about getting involved with a Pro Se (Non attorney) But NIck and I think it goes much deeper than that.

 

When SAPPA contacted them close to a year ago, they didn't even give us the courtesy of a response. Keep in mind both John's letter and ours did not ask for money.  In fact we stated clearly the SAPPA Group only wanted the NRA to help get this lawsuit some publicity. 

 

What Nick thinks, and I agree, the NRA has a fabulous cash cow with dollars flowing in everyday.  It might be that if this Purpura v. Christie et al lawsuit is successful the Federal Ruling which would cover not just NJ, but every state in the Union, some of that cash might just dry up.

 

When the SAPPA Group gives presentations to groups, we generally cover this topic by equating it to what would happen if a scientist notified the press on a Friday evening that on the following Monday he would announce a complete cure for every known type of cancer.  This fine scientist would not live to see Saturday morning.

 

But having said that, any contact by members of any club or organization would help.  The SAPPA Group has already sent over 20 letters to NJ and National gun Clubs.  We have received modest support from a few in terms of "atta boys, go get em".  But that's about it.  NJ2AS did put a notice of our suit in one of their Bulletins. 

 

The SAPPA Group will travel anywhere to give a presentation to organizations or groups. (We have been doing this for over a year now) So if anyone belongs to a group that might be interested, let us know.  We never charge a fee. We only require that we be allowed to start our presentation prior to all other club agenda.  We have found that if members have to sit through an hour or more of club business most of them, by the time our presentation starts, are looking for the door instead asking questions.  Our presentation takes about 20 minutes and depending on how interested the group is the Q&A could go longer.

 

Thanks again,

Dwight

and

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By 124gr9mm
      Received this last night.
      Sent a message to all the contact names on the list they provided at the link:
       
       HONEST GUN OWNERS TREATED
      THE SAME AS MURDERERS FOR
      INADVERTENT, TECHNICAL LAW VIOLATIONS   No Violent Crime Required Rot in Jail for Years While Awaiting “Trial”
      Tell Lawmakers to Fix or Oppose This Poorly-Crafted Bill
      On Monday, March 14 at 1:00 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A2426 – an apparently well-intentioned but badly botched piece of legislation whose intended purpose appears to be to throw the book at violent gun criminals – which law-abiding gun owners actually support.
        But as written, the bill does not distinguish between violent criminal behavior and innocent technical infractions for the draconian presumption against bail to apply.  Law-abiding gun owners who inadvertently violate NJ’s thicket of hyper-technical firearms possession laws would be treated exactly the same as murderers—thrown in jail to rot for years without bail while they await trial someday for their “crimes.”
      This is not an imagined concern, as the Garden State has a well-documented track record of throwing the book at honest gun owners for innocent technical infractions.  As written, this bill adds insult to injury and would throw honest gun owners in the gulag for years while they await trial for “infractions” like:
      -Stopping for food, fuel, going to the bathroom, or medical treatment on the way to or from the target range.
      -Transporting firearms to or from one’s place of business, a gun store, hunting, fishing, target shooting competitions, target ranges, re-enactments, gun buyback events, vacation homes or other destinations.
      -Widows or widowers turning in firearms of their deceased spouses.
      -Possession of antique and black powder firearms (even these firearms could trigger the draconian penalties under this bill).
      PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND TELL THEM TO EITHER FIX OR OPPOSE A2426.  The law should distinguish between MERE POSSESSION of firearms by honest gun owners, vs. MISUSE of firearms by violent gun criminals, and draconian penalties like presumptive denial of bail should only apply to violent criminals who misuse firearms, and not to innocent mistakes of honest gun owners like technical possessory infractions where no violent misconduct is present.  Honest gun owners should not be treated the same as murderers!  Throw the book at the bad guys but take extreme care not to lump the good guys in with the bad.  The bill can easily be amended to make it clear that its penalties apply only to persons accused of violent criminal behavior.
       
       
    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • 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.
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...