Second Amendment Preservation and Protection Act (SAPPA)

[Newtonian 453]

how do we get the lazy#$% out to vote though?

That is the only salvation. Rolling up our sleeves and awakening 10-20% of those alleged NJ gun owners. I've posted on this at least 10 times. I've researched the election landscape and provided numbers. NJ2AS is going after Sweeney, who won by 6,000 votes, meanwhile several legislators won last time by a couple of hundred votes.

 

Hoping for a miracle is not a strategy. It's a delusion.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

i talk to everyone i know, trying to get them to vote. including a couple customers that're hunters. i was able to gain the interest of one in particular, that's just blown me off in the past. when i mentioned that they were going after 5.56, it got his attention, even though he doesn't hunt with anything that small. he understood the implication that they'd be coming for his ammo too at that point. i guess that's one in a row. honestly though, i find it difficult to believe so dam many gun owners sit back and take it........

[Rysdad 5]

I think for the most part that they sit back and take it because they are supporters of the liberal agenda, and gun control just happens to be on that agenda.  They are not critical independent thinkers and are willing to take it in the ass if it means their liberal ideology can become reality.

 

Liberalism is deadly to this and any other free nation!

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

• Caution:  Not for those with a short attention span, but definitely worth the few minutes.
   

THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT

ASININE, INEXPLICABLE

and

PERILOUS

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TPATH Commentary By:

Dwight Kehoe

SAPPA Group

 

April 9, 2015 ~TPATH~ For the most part of the last two years the SAPPA Group has been researchingSecond Amendment rulings regarding New Jersey legislators, judges and appointed officials.  Some of these rulings have been handed down from state courts and Federal courts, both District and Circuit. 

The most informative thing we have found is that there are almost no judges or justices who concern themselves with anything relating to support of the Constitution.  Time and time again, their rulings and decisions have been made based purely on the belief that they have a right to change the scope, intent and concept of the Bill of Rights, if any parts therein run contrary to their basic ideology. Perilous?  You bet it is.

Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that no state can create and enforce laws which are prohibited by the Constitution,  the lower courts ignore those rulings and continue to deny citizens the civil rights which our Founding Fathers declared, fought and died for.

In order to support the leftist ideologues of the New Jersey state courts, the District and Circuit Courts have done what can only be described as oral and written contortionism.  One would think that at some point the nonsensical reasoning these people have provided in order to continue their unconstitutional law making  would have induced smirks or at least the raising of an eyebrow from the bench.  Alas, when it comes to New Jersey, there appears to be no degree of stupidity capable of such elicitations.

So, think this might be an exaggeration?  Just in case you might, here are just two of the many arguments in support  of absurd assumptions that these people have made over the several court filings concerning New Jersey's unconstitutional laws which prevent its citizens from employing their right of self defense.  We wish we could point out that one of these two is more convoluted than the other, but they both present equally, a challenge to the concept of common sense.  

Just a bit of background for those who may not be aware.  Several people have challenged New Jersey laws which on the face of them appear to allow citizens the right to carry a firearm.  But for certain, that appearance is just that, an appearance.  The intent is to obscure the actual application of the law by pretending to not violate the Bill of Rights.  The part of the law which is possibly the most outlandish of the many outlandish laws infecting New Jersey's legal system is the term “justifiable need”.  That very simple phrase was put in place for one reason and one reason only.  That is to prevent every citizen except the very elite from ever being issued a carry permit. 

For those of us who went to school before the leftist teacher's unions and then Common Core had begun altering history and discouraging the thought process, the term “justifiable need” appears nowhere in the Second Amendment.  While it quite clearly states that every citizen has the right to own and bear arms, it forbids any state or lawmaker from infringing on that right.

Inexplicable Example One:  
The 3rd Circuit Court, without even the slightest giggle or snicker accepted the argument presented by the State of New Jersey that even though the laws they have been imposing on its people may well be unconstitutional, they have been violating those rights for such a long period of time, they should be allowed to keep the violation train heading down the track.  

Shall we extrapolate this absurdity to other legal dispositions in order to see the dangerous precedent such inanity might produce?  We think we should. Simply put, according to New Jersey and agreed to by the 3rd Circuit, all one needs to do to not only escape punishment for violating a law, but to also be allowed to continue that violation, is to have gotten away with it for some unspecified period of time.  So, counterfeiters, forgers (this may help Obama someday), burglars, bank robbers, rapists even terrorists, according to the 3rd Circuit, could go unpunished and allowed to continue their illegal endeavors, provided they didn't get caught too soon.

Inexplicable Example Two:
It might be difficult to fathom the possibility that Example One above could be overshadowed in its asininity, but hold on tightly to your Constitution because Example Two does it in spades. 

Again, accepted without equivocation by the majority in the 3rd Circuit was the idea proffered by New Jersey that a citizen of the United States, regardless of which state he resides in, is no longer protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution once he leaves the confines of his home.  

No, this is not a joke.  It has been proffered several times and then agreed to by court jesters and never once did any one of them appear to be even the slightest bit embarrassed.  The 3rd Circuit was duly informed by the State of New Jersey that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens while in their homes.  Once that citizen leaves there he no longer has civil rights.

A Liberal Trip Back In Time:
The Founding Fathers, in a meeting and discussing the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.   
TJ might have said to George, “Hey GW, the wording of this Second Amendment thing might give the wrong impression.  Are you sure we want these peasants to think they can defend themselves from King George's  marauders anywhere, even outside?   Shouldn't we put a stipulation in the Amendment? You know, something like – Non-infringement ceases at your front door?"   

Then George would have replied, “ No Tom, we don't have to do that, we can count on that New Jersey Colony.  There will be no shortage of infringers and abettors there.  So let's save the ink.”

Now Back To The Present and Reality:
Just for a minute let us imagine that state legislators and Federal judges are not prevented from declaring where your rights start and where they stop.  Would that not endanger every Constitutional Right and place the people in absolute control of  man instead of law?  Was not our Constitution written to prevent such a scenario? 

When the next appeal reaches the United States Supreme Court, and there will be one very soon, if the State of New Jersey, in conspiracy with the 3rd Circuit is allowed to claim they have the power to isolate and localize our civil rights regarding the Second Amendment, what future do any of the other rights have?  

Will some judge be able to declare that your right to freedom of religion ends at your door step?  Will your right to free speech end there as well?  How about your right to congregate for redress?  Has it not been adjudicated that a person's right to privacy extends to his person, his vehicle and other locations? How is it possible then that one civil right is boundless while another is allowed to be restricted by state of New Jersey?  Does not the 14th Amendment prohibit such activity?  

For certain, once we acquiesce any part of our rights, never again will any other part be safe.  The next determination of where your rights begin and end might be relegated to your basement or possibly a closet.  If this possibility does not shiver your timbers, maybe you should start at the top and read this again.

Overwhelming statistics and facts compiled by the FBI over the past few decades prove unequivocally that where gun ownership by law abiding citizens is not infringed, crimes per capita  are not just lower, they are much lower.  Consequently, people are safer, property is secure and the pursuit of happiness is in full swing.  Where law abiding citizens are not prevented from defending themselves, criminals are prevented from carefree pursuit of property not theirs. 

Many times phrases have been used in these court cases that look something like this.  “We can't allow people to be armed. We don't want to see the wild, wild west in our streets.”   This statement and others like it iterate the ideology of those violators of your rights.  It clearly shows that they think they have the right to control the activity of the citizens, based upon their ideology and false beliefs.  The Constitution, be damned. 

Some Wild West Facts:

In states where the right to carry is not infringed, only a small percentage of citizens actually apply for a permit and even fewer strap on hardware to be taken wherever they go.  The good thing however, is the criminal never knows who may be armed.  That is what they call a presupposed warning.

What most citizens here in New Jersey would like is to be able to carry a weapon, if they felt the need, without being illegally imperiled by this state.  And to not be prevented from taking a weapon with them in their vehicle or at work or in the woods without the fear of violating one of the hundreds of gun laws that could land them in prison or convicted of a felony. 

It needs to be pointed out that even if the areas where law abiding citizens were not prevented from arming themselves were indeed more dangerous, the rights under the Constitution could still not be infringed.  Legally at least.  The Founders provided for changing things they may have gotten wrong. The Amendment process.  All judges and legislators take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to legislate away parts they don't like.  Communist governments and dictators do that.

[siderman 1,137]

Inexplicable Example One= more blood pressure meds wnenever i read that pc of shit logic ARGH!

[tattooo 220]

You guys have my vote..... doing something / anything is better than taking it on the chin just because it's a nearly impossible battle.... No battle is easy and sure it will be hard to chip away, keep up pressure and ultimately undo these Dictators rulings and interpretations and iron fist that has become the accepted norm, but hey..... what worth fighting for is easy ?

[gleninjersey 2,141]

OGG, thanks for sharing!

 

Dwight, thank you for writting!

 

I wonder how many NJ residents even realize the extent their 2A rights are violated here.

[tattooo 220]

I can't understand the resistance and ridicule from fellow NJ gun owners / enthusiasts ...... Hey ..... if you dont agree, want to join or think its a waste of time because its too late, dont knock the few that have the balls to try

[CMJeepster 2,778]

I wonder how many NJ residents even realize the extent their 2A rights are violated here.

Only the ones that care.

[Guest]

I wonder how many NJ residents even realize the extent their 2A rights are violated here.

Only those who have lived in a free state for more than a few months, or at least long enough to buy and shoot a few guns

[gleninjersey 2,141]

To CMJeepster & hunter - I really wonder. If you were to ask people, "Do you think NJ citizens have the right to carry a gun for self defense?", what they would say? I may start asking some people just to see. Could be interesting.

[Guest]

I feel them out prior to asking but I have asked when I thought I would get a thoughtful response. I feel them out while watching or talking about tv shows, westerns, cop shows, etc... Even though they agree with having a gun during the show, when I asked about if they owned one, the response was always "NO!, not in my house, somebody could get hurt" or someone could steal it. 

 

They didn't grow up with guns and all they know is what they hear on the news which is, 99% of the time, guns are bad, guns kill, child got ahold of a gun, etc... 

 

BTW, these are all ex girlfriends, current GF was anti until I talked her into going to the range with me. Even though she still has no interest in owning one, she is not against others owning them. She will bring up how what she thinks is a "common sense" law she heard on the news and I explain (AGAIN) how that will not stop the bad guys from hurting other people with or without guns

[maintenanceguy 510]

I feel them out prior to asking but I have asked when I thought I would get a thoughtful response. I feel them out while watching or talking about tv shows, westerns, cop shows, etc... Even though they agree with having a gun during the show, when I asked about if they owned one, the response was always "NO!, not in my house, somebody could get hurt" or someone could steal it. 

 

They didn't grow up with guns and all they know is what they hear on the news which is, 99% of the time, guns are bad, guns kill, child got ahold of a gun, etc... 

 

BTW, these are all ex girlfriends, current GF was anti until I talked her into going to the range with me. Even though she still has no interest in owning one, she is not against others owning them. She will bring up how what she thinks is a "common sense" law she heard on the news and I explain (AGAIN) how that will not stop the bad guys from hurting other people with or without guns

 

Truth!   I grew up on a farm. Shot something almost every day after school.  I didn't even know that there were people who were anti-gun until I went to college.  At college, I met a lot of people who had never held a gun - that was just so bizarre to me.  A few were neutral on the issue but several were anti-gun...again, bizarre to me.

 

So I invited them shooting.  Even anti-gun people are curious and if the rest of the dorm is going, they aren't going to miss it.   It turned into a several time a year event.  4 or 5 cars filled with kids, my trunk packed full of guns and ammo, and a whole day shooting on the farm.  Fast forward a couple of decades and a lot of those college kids are now gun owners.  

 

One in particular was so anti-gun that the first time I visited her apartment, she had her check written out to Handgun Control Incorporated (now the Brady Campaign).  It was sitting on her kitchen table ready to go out in the mail the next morning.  10 years later, she called me up and asked if she could use me for a reference on her P2P application.

 

Take a friend or co-worker shooting.  It works.

[tattooo 220]

Good work brotha.... I try to take friend to the range also.... they dont know what they're missing ....

[CMJeepster 2,778]

To CMJeepster & hunter - I really wonder. If you were to ask people, "Do you think NJ citizens have the right to carry a gun for self defense?", what they would say? I may start asking some people just to see. Could be interesting.

I have found very few people in my life here in NJ (unlike my home state or PA) that think that citizens should be allowed to exercise that right.  Most of the people that I work with are "blues" and even my father-in-law who is ultra conservative, deep red thinks that only the police and the military should have firearms.  When I asked him what he would do if someone attacked him outside of his home, he responded that he'd call the police.  When I pressed him further in asking what if he had his phone taken away or broken, he said he'd run.  Further questioning of what he'd do if there were more than one attacker led him to tell me that he'd fight his hardest with hands and fists.  And when I asked him if he would feel that he had a better chance of survival by just drawing a firearm, he said no.

 

It's funny though that the "blues" in my area were the ones that weren't prepared for Sandy, Irene or even the snowstorms over the past few years.  Most had the attitude that the government would have them plowed out and that the utility companies would restore services and clear the roads in a matter of minutes so that they could hop into their vehicles and go get their lattes.  They were the ones asking me for help after the first 24 hours of no utilities and no way out of the neighborhood.

 

I believe very, very much in personal responsibility.  My biggest core issue-relaten problem with society today is the lack of personal responsibility.  People don't understand that only they are responsible for themselves.  Nobody is going to wipe their nose for them.

[Newtonian 453]

I have found very few people in my life here in NJ (unlike my home state or PA) that think that citizens should be allowed to exercise that right.  Most of the people that I work with are "blues" and even my father-in-law who is ultra conservative, deep red thinks that only the police and the military should have firearms.  When I asked him what he would do if someone attacked him outside of his home, he responded that he'd call the police.  When I pressed him further in asking what if he had his phone taken away or broken, he said he'd run.  Further questioning of what he'd do if there were more than one attacker led him to tell me that he'd fight his hardest with hands and fists.  And when I asked him if he would feel that he had a better chance of survival by just drawing a firearm, he said no.

My father is exactly the same, an otherwise ultra-conservative gun hater. In our case I think it's the northeast immigrant mentality. None of our paesani owned guns of any kind. They used to make fun of the guy next door to my grandparents who hunted.  

[1LtCAP 4,262]

my mom used to think that only police/military should have guns......she's woken up.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

My father is exactly the same, an otherwise ultra-conservative gun hater. In our case I think it's the northeast immigrant mentality. None of our paesani owned guns of any kind. They used to make fun of the guy next door to my grandparents who hunted.  

He's also the one that lived with us for a few days after Sandy because he had no power, heat, water...

[mipafox 438]

My father is exactly the same, an otherwise ultra-conservative gun hater. In our case I think it's the northeast immigrant mentality. None of our paesani owned guns of any kind. They used to make fun of the guy next door to my grandparents who hunted.  

If you guys have 10 minutes, this will drive you nuts. I found this a few years ago:

 

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/191382-we-came-here-get-away-guns.html

 

Short version - NY couple moves to PA to get away from guns, sicks their NYC cop relative on their PA neighbor that owns and carries, trying to intimidate and threaten him. Hilarity ensues. If you are short on time just look for the OP's posts, I never got through the whole thing. I know it has a very happy ending

[fumanchu182 23]

If you guys have 10 minutes, this will drive you nuts. I found this a few years ago:

 

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/191382-we-came-here-get-away-guns.html

 

Short version - NY couple moves to PA to get away from guns, sicks their NYC cop relative on their PA neighbor that owns and carries, trying to intimidate and threaten him. Hilarity ensues. If you are short on time just look for the OP's posts, I never got through the whole thing. I know it has a very happy ending

 

 

Reading through that pafoa thread now on page 16 and it's nothing but hilarity.

[Newtonian 453]

If you guys have 10 minutes, this will drive you nuts. I found this a few years ago:

 

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/191382-we-came-here-get-away-guns.html

 

Short version - NY couple moves to PA to get away from guns, sicks their NYC cop relative on their PA neighbor that owns and carries, trying to intimidate and threaten him. Hilarity ensues. If you are short on time just look for the OP's posts, I never got through the whole thing. I know it has a very happy ending

Yup. That's exactly how almost everybody in my family would have reacted. Greater NYC is a whole 'nother world. 

[mipafox 438]

Yup. That's exactly how almost everybody in my family would have reacted. Greater NYC is a whole 'nother world.

They wold have sold their house and left PA? Good.

 

- We don't care what they think.

- We are not afraid of your cops. We'll have them arrested or arrest them ourselves.

- Get out. Go back where you came from.

- The End

[Newtonian 453]

They wold have sold their house and left PA? Good.

 

- We don't care what they think.

- We are not afraid of your cops. We'll have them arrested or arrest them ourselves.

- Get out. Go back where you came from.

- The End

 I like the comment you made a couple of weeks go, basically, "When you leave greater NYC you're surrounded by guns." Sorry if I misquote you.

 

I think that should be the mantra to all the anti's who send their kids to college outside the New York area. Amazingly they don't know or believe. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

when were we supposed to hear something on how their filing went?

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

when were we supposed to hear something on how their filing went?

 

They said they were going to file within 2-3 weeks after the meeting, but one of the main proponents was dealing with a major illness.

I have not heard anything further on it yet.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

me being tired, paranoid(although not nearly the ninja level of some in here), and somewhat cynical right now finds it rather strangely coincidental that there is an illness timed so perfectly.

 

 that said, if i'm out of place, and there truly is an illness, i apologize, and hope that he gets well.

[Rysdad 5]

I can tell you that he is doing well but was not so well at the time of the meeting.

 

The filing will come soon. The draft needed some changes. It seems the courts keep moving the goalposts. He is anxious to get this going. I can say that I have read the full brief multiple times and it is being prepared for an April filing.

 

Once it is filed it will be shared in its entirety here I am sure.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

thanks! i'm looking forward to reading it when it's posted.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

any word yet? anything filed? anyone heard how the guy's feeling?

[1LtCAP 4,262]

i'm guessing this has hit a wall. it's awfully quiet on this topic suddenly.