Jump to content
JohnnyB

Christie on 101.5 at 7PM tonight!!

Recommended Posts

Here's a link to the broadcast: http://nj1015.com/christie-easier-for-bad-guys-to-get-guns-in-nj-than-good-guys/

 

He says the right stuff when he's pushed. Question: Is the change to justifiable need available through executive order or some other executive mechanism? 

 

I know a lot of you say it is, but wasn't JN legislated? Does the governor have in effect a line-item veto of existing law?

 

Or as MIPA says is it administrative code only and therefore subject to executive editing? Has a NJ governor done this before with laws or codes he didn't like?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the executive order is just defining what "justifiable need" is. as currently there is no definition of "justifiable need".  has anyone tried to contact scott bach of anjrpc? ( must be an anjrpc member to get a response) hes very knowledgeable and would know whats possible and what isnt plus could help us with this fight.  how about the nra lobbyist i think darren goens not sure if hes still there. ive been out of the mix the past 2 years or so bc of personal reasons and havent kept up on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "Justifiable Need" is legislated, the definition of it is open to interpretation and opinion.  I'm not aware of any court case that sets the definition, so the Admin Code is the default until such time as a court ruling exists.  IANAL, but I believe the AG could issue a clarification to support "Self Defense" or "All Lawful Purposes" as meeting the justifiable need threshold, but then the AG would be in a position to defend that in court if a judge decided to deny a CCW based on a different definition - and I don't see that happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a link to the broadcast: http://nj1015.com/christie-easier-for-bad-guys-to-get-guns-in-nj-than-good-guys/

 

He says the right stuff when he's pushed. Question: Is the change to justifiable need available through executive order or some other executive mechanism? 

 

I know a lot of you say it is, but wasn't JN legislated? Does the governor have in effect a line-item veto of existing law?

 

Or as MIPA says is it administrative code only and therefore subject to executive editing? Has a NJ governor done this before with laws or codes he didn't like?

 

It's subject to editing by the regulatory agency, people he hires and can fire. Yes, Governors influence NJAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of you say it is, but wasn't JN legislated? Does the governor have in effect a line-item veto of existing law?

 

Or as MIPA says is it administrative code only and therefore subject to executive editing? Has a NJ governor done this before with laws or codes he didn't like?

 

IMO, and I am not a lawyer, the closest thing to look at for an example would be the substantially identical verbiage in the AWB that went to court. In that case, substantially identical is a phrase with a decent amount of legal history in the financial world, the law as structured really kind of made it meaningless as it did not originally provide enough information to make the phrase have meaning, and thus the evil features list had to come about.

 

In the case of justifiable need, there is little way to determine the meaning of that phrase from the law itself. Usually when you see something like that, the law either gets struck down, or if the intent appears to be to delegate definiing it to a regulatory authority, they defer to a definition put forth by said regualroty authority. given the wording of the law, THe judicial branch is the overseer of abuse, which would mean that it's executive branch stuff. Which would be something you define in administrative code. The interpretation of the meaning of that phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if a lawyer familiar with this issue could chime in. Again, I've never heard of this occurring in the past.

 

But if what MIPA and Raz say is true, then JN is the weak link in this state's anti-gun legal/regulatory ammunition. Why aren't we going after precisely that stipulation wherever and whenever the opportunity arises? Amazingly week, when adding "which includes personal defense outside the home" or "for all legal purposes" would fix everything. 

 

Of course that would require cooperation from law enforcement and the judiciary, which is unlikely. 

 

What is the status of CC in Washington DC, what, seven years after Heller and five after McDonald? Or am I mis-reading that law as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not contact Evan Nappen. Ask for a written legal opinion from him to present to 101.5 to show to Christie.

His response will probably be along the lines of what Tony DeCesare asked my father 50 years ago: "Hey Johnny, ya got dirty dousan dollas?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, CC once commented that he would never "abuse of executive orders" the way Obama did, that he did not think EOs were a good idea in general and that he is against issuing EOs. We might be better off taking that phrase out of our questions. It would seem that changing the administrative code can be done without so much as an EO. so why ask for an EO?

I wonder if we could come up with enough "listener requests" to get the station to try to set up a show with CC and another guest together, A guest like Nappen or Bach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, CC once commented that he would never "abuse of executive orders" the way Obama did, that he did not think EOs were a good idea in general and that he is against issuing EOs. We might be better off taking that phrase out of our questions. It would seem that changing the administrative code can be done without so much as an EO. so why ask for an EO?

I wonder if we could come up with enough "listener requests" to get the station to try to set up a show with CC and another guest together, A guest like Nappen or Bach?

 

That would be great! Problem is, Christie would never agree to such a debate! Especially now with run for POTUS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Christie cannot be trusted with your rights! He is very similar to President Obama, after all he did give the president a big hug!

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/anti-gun-chris-christie-and-john-kasich-nhfc-candidate-findings/#ixzz3tyiEd0UK 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

post-1236-0-01129400-1449803582_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Bob B. [Another thing he could do is redefine "substantially identical."  Substantially identical is not defined in the law, it is defined in an AG letter.  He could, for example, have the AG update the opinion letter stating that there are no .22 rimfire firearms on the banned list, so no .22 rimfire firearms will be considered substantially identical.  Or, he could delete the flash hider as an evil feature, etc.  ]

 

 

 

If you don't mind me giving my opinion, it is too complicated. And also about "assault weapons." Not very popular in the media right now, and regulated or banned in a number of states.

 

CCW Justifiable Need is a simple issue. 47 states. Nobody in the media is running a propaganda program to get rid of carry. Even the commie states that recently passed gun restrictions, none touched carry. It is also the most important right Jersey is missing. I would stick with that cause for going after Christie. If we try to hit him with too many gun issues on the radio it will confuse the dumbass hosts and give Christie wiggle room to bullshit his way out of it.

 

It's not complicated at all.  Christie has a lot to make up for if he wants to win the NH Primary.  Let him justify to the people of NH why he didn't do it.  He could delete flash hiders from the list.  He could state that .22's are not substantially identical.  He could define "folding/telescoping" to exclude adjustable stocks that still meet the minimum length requirements at the shortest setting.  He could increase or eliminate the maximum weight limit for handguns.  He could eliminate the threaded barrel as an evil feature.  These are simple, dare I say, common sense changes that could be done administratively - with a mere AG letter and/or a change to the Administrative Code.  

 

Another thing he could do is eliminate the requirement for a NICS check at the point of sale for those that had a permit issued within the last 5 years.  There is no NJ statute that requires the NICS check and the Brady Law allows for that type of exemption.  

 

There are many things that Christie could do to improve things administratively.  We just don't put the same kind of thought into it as the anti's do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are many things that Christie could do to improve things administratively.  We just don't put the same kind of thought into it as the anti's do.  

Thought...what's that? Can you explain? Something to do with brain functioning? Reason? C'mon. Let's recall some folks! It'll only take three months and we'll be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have put enough thought into it. Christies says he can't make self defense a justifiable need, but some way...some how he can identify justfieble need as the 3 criteria his committee came up with. How do u work with that?

 

The guy is a joke to us all. I'm not sure why he's burning the bridge at both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have put enough thought into it. Christies says he can't make self defense a justifiable need, but some way...some how he can identify justfieble need as the 3 criteria his committee came up with. How do u work with that?

 

The guy is a joke to us all. I'm not sure why he's burning the bridge at both ends.

 

 

By "we" I mean supposedly pro-gun conservative elected officials.  There is always a wave of anti-gun legislation and executive orders in the works.  They have think tanks that come up with new imaginative ways of restricting the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't see that from the pro-gun elected officials.  There are plenty of ideas from pro-gun individuals and groups, but those ideas don't seam to get the same type of attention that ideas on the other side get.  My point was that there are many things that Christie could do and the suggestion that he should somehow pace himself or that we should only work on one idea at a time is silly.  Our representatives should be more aggressive with using the authority that they have.  They should push the limits of that authority and force the anti's to challenge those actions in court.  Let them waste their time and spend their money for a change.  Christie is doing the bare minimum that he thinks will get him support in NH.  He is counting on them being uninformed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Christie is doing the bare minimum that he thinks will get him support in NH.  He is counting on them being uninformed.  

I have family just over the bridge in PA, and they don't know how bad things are here. And these people are gun owners 10 minutes from NJ. I don't imagine people in NH are any more informed.

 

The vast majority of gun owners in other states have no idea what is going on in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, JackDaWack. Good point. His own committee just gave him proposed new language for justifiable need and he has the balls to tell us he can't change justifiable need. He's about to change it, he's just not going to change it measurably for the better. It's his choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have family just over the bridge in PA, and they don't know how bad things are here. And these people are gun owners 10 minutes from NJ. I don't imagine people in NH are any more informed.

 

The vast majority of gun owners in other states have no idea what is going on in NJ.

 

 

They do, here in Florida.  Because they know they don't want the NJ mentality ever coming down here!  And there are enough of us here from NJ to remind them of what it was like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do, here in Florida.  Because they know they don't want the NJ mentality ever coming down here!  And there are enough of us here from NJ to remind them of what it was like.  

 

My friend is a transplant from NJ in the Naples area, he carries every day and he makes fun of me every day for not moving already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit, I know a lot of them! :)

 

I know. :)    Both Broward and Dade counties are our "problem children" in re: NE Transplants.  Leon County (Tallahassee) and Duval County (Jacksonville) are of general concern in re: local "native" populations of "people who want free stuff" and who, therefore, vote in "anti" politicians.  But, otherwise, we're pretty strong. 

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.



×
×
  • Create New...