capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 Some involving an IDEA. Then about fighting for our rights. Then some Bob name came up. Apparently there is a Bob in ANJRPC "officers" list. Then something about how poor ANJRPC is really and then discover poor Bach is almost working for "free" to protect our rights. Yes, there is that part of it. Much better response than my own. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 14, 2017 making that kind of money on us, he dam well better be able to figure out a way to stop this crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 making that kind of money on us, he dam well better be able to figure out a way to stop this crap.Like most charities I don't think they want to find a cure. If they did they would be out of business.Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 14, 2017 24 minutes ago, capt14k said: Like most charities I don't think they want to find a cure. If they did they would be out of business. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk actually they wouldn't. it would be a constant fight to keep those re-gained rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CAL. .30 M1 2,101 Posted November 14, 2017 And that is why this has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MAGAZINE CAPACITY - FOLLOW THE GOSH DARN MONEY - when you 'earn' that kind of money from turmoil do you want to see the turmoil go away? Surely not - so the take away for magazine capacity - see more calls for rallies - more donations - more of the same crap that went on back in 2013/14/15/16 etc. and way before with no results. I wish I could work like that, produce no results and command top dollar......... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 actually they wouldn't. it would be a constant fight to keep those re-gained rights.Not if we get a 7-2 ruling from SCOTUS. For now I'll take 5-4Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 My entire point of the earlier posts was no NJ gun group has done a thing. Over half a million dollars a year is given to Scott Bach and he hasn't done a thing. Even if he was responsible for Christie's Vetoes it just delayed the inevitable. Even if the Hail Mary of getting Sweeney to table bills works it will only last til the next mass shooting or Sweeney is gone. If that half a million dollars a year was spent on lawsuits one will eventually get to SCOTUS. Once they rule it is for the most part permanent (yes SCOTUS has overturned previous decisions but it is rare). These suits should have already been filed and should be working their way through the courts so that next year when Kennedy Retires we get our guaranteed permanent victory. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 14, 2017 THIS is why i keep saying to use out of state lawyers. po6 had a pair that seemed to be making great progress for them....but they too ran outta money. the difference? those lawyers were really trying to fix something(for money of course). but their only vested interest in this was to fix the problem at hand....not to maintain the status quo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,134 Posted November 14, 2017 I'm not an acct and end up staring into space looking at those kind of statements.... but cash cow? I'm not sure if thats fair as Scott is the ExDir of ANJRPC which includes that org AND the Cherry Ridge range which ANJRPC owns and is quite a large endeaver on its own. Somebody has to sign off on everything so perhaps thats why his name is all over the place. Every company, corp. and org works the numbers for the best outcome and ANJRPC isnt any different. I just cant see all of ANJRPC's officers,,trustees, committeee people and volunteers not knowing if he was taking such libertys with all that money for personal gain or even if they did know that its ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 THIS is why i keep saying to use out of state lawyers. po6 had a pair that seemed to be making great progress for them....but they too ran outta money. the difference? those lawyers were really trying to fix something(for money of course). but their only vested interest in this was to fix the problem at hand....not to maintain the status quo.Is that what happened to party of six? They ran out of money? I agree about using out of state lawyers. Scott Bach, Evan Nappen, or any other NJ lawyer should have no part of any suit.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 I'm not an acct and end up staring into space looking at those kind of statements.... but cash cow? I'm not sure if thats fair as Scott is the ExDir of ANJRPC which includes that org AND the Cherry Ridge range which ANJRPC owns and is quite a large endeaver on its own. Somebody has to sign off on everything so perhaps thats why his name is all over the place. Every company, corp. and org works the numbers for the best outcome and ANJRPC isnt any different. I just cant see all of ANJRPC's officers,,trustees, committeee people and volunteers not knowing if he was taking such libertys with all that money for personal gain or even if they did know that its ok. He is triple dipping in a non profit. The way I saw it is ANJRPC spent $51,000 on lobbying and $150,000 on shooting. Half a million went to Bach and the other half a million went to advertising, rent, deprecation, and other overhand. Not a very good use of funds. Party of Six needed $175,000 for lawyers how about Bach gave up half his firms compensation to them? ANJRPC owns Cherry Ridge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted November 14, 2017 Holy wandering thread! Seriously, I think the discussion of NJ 2A orgs is an important and timely one. I, for one, am trying to decide where I want to put my dollars/time... and obviously, where it will get the most bang for the buck is a big consideration. However, since there's a certain amount of trashing going on here - which may (or may not) be fair, accurate, informed, etc. - and since it's a one-sided discussion where these parties can't defend themselves - perhaps we should at least open a new thread in the 1A Lounge for a wee bit more privacy? Just a suggestion! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted November 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said: Holy wandering thread! Seriously, I think the discussion of NJ 2A orgs is an important and timely one. I, for one, am trying to decide where I want to put my dollars/time... and obviously, where it will get the most bang for the buck is a big consideration. However, since there's a certain amount of trashing going on here - which may (or may not) be fair, accurate, informed, etc. - and since it's a one-sided discussion where these parties can't defend themselves - perhaps we should at least open a new thread in the 1A Lounge for a wee bit more privacy? Just a suggestion! Lonely at the top... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 14, 2017 Holy wandering thread! Seriously, I think the discussion of NJ 2A orgs is an important and timely one. I, for one, am trying to decide where I want to put my dollars/time... and obviously, where it will get the most bang for the buck is a big consideration. However, since there's a certain amount of trashing going on here - which may (or may not) be fair, accurate, informed, etc. - and since it's a one-sided discussion where these parties can't defend themselves - perhaps we should at least open a new thread in the 1A Lounge for a wee bit more privacy? Just a suggestion! I have no problem with openly bashing them. The financials are public record. Which reminds me where are NJ2AS records?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted November 14, 2017 1 minute ago, capt14k said: I have no problem with openly bashing them. The financials are public record. Which reminds me where are NJ2AS records? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk In all fairness, you just asked, "ANJRPC owns Cherry Ridge?" Now that might make your argument stronger - or weaker. But, I'm not sure "bashing" without all the facts (or even some of the basic ones) is entirely appropriate. The phrase "eating our own" comes to mind... But, hey... it was just a suggestion. I personally will disengage from this very open and public thread for reasons stated. You all do as you please, obviously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted November 14, 2017 “ if they are fighting themselves, they are not fighting me”... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 15, 2017 In all fairness, you just asked, "ANJRPC owns Cherry Ridge?" Now that might make your argument stronger - or weaker. But, I'm not sure "bashing" without all the facts (or even some of the basic ones) is entirely appropriate. The phrase "eating our own" comes to mind... But, hey... it was just a suggestion. I personally will disengage from this very open and public thread for reasons stated. You all do as you please, obviously. My bashing is based on what has been done in NJ. Where are the lawsuits? For half a million dollars a year they should have backed party of 6. Scott Bach should have worked Pro Bono. They are the official link to the NRA why haven't they brought in the NRA's hundred of millions of dollars? If you are happy with what they have done by all means donate to them. I am a NRA member because it's required by CJRPC and for what they do nationally. Not what has been done in this state. They did it in California why can't they do it here? Whatever happened to the Pantano Case in Manalapan? Last I recall Nappen was taking it to SCOTUS. I can't find a denial of cert from SCOTUS. If no one knows I will stop in and ask tomorrow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 15, 2017 3 hours ago, capt14k said: Is that what happened to party of six? They ran out of money? I agree about using out of state lawyers. Scott Bach, Evan Nappen, or any other NJ lawyer should have no part of any suit. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk yea. was talking to one of them and he'd mentioned that they were about to run out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucin 918 Posted November 15, 2017 10 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said: Once again Follow the money - Look eveyone deserves to make aliving eveyone deserves to have a fair share of the proverbial pie - but if it is true - to walk around with a CCW and say - it is good for me but not thee - that is plain wrong. To sit by an allow and/or work not to try to stymie laws as it might impact your earnings is well - wrong but it is the nature of the beast . That is why as others have said - having those with a vested financial interest in the outcome of laws/negotiations etc. - that could potentially hurt them - is well - not to bright. I believe it's also called a conflict of interest. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted November 15, 2017 There are no compromises, the Demorats have control of the state. Our only courses of action are: 1. Non compliance 2. Using the court systems 3. Civil disobedience 4. Compliance and surrender 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 15, 2017 3 hours ago, capt14k said: Is that what happened to party of six? They ran out of money? ... Party of 6 didn't run out of money AFAIK; I followed them closely and donated twice. One of the two main plaintiffs (Albert Almeida) was granted a carry permit. The other plaintiff dropped out of the case, not sure why. Since the only plaintiff who remained was granted a permit, there was nothing that could be litigated further. The out of state lawyer who was representing Party of 6 was Stephen Stamboulieh - he was also the lawyer who ran the case that got the stun gun ban thrown out. I met him in person at an event, he's the real deal as far as an RKBA advocate: http://www.sdslaw.us/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 15, 2017 Party of 6 didn't run out of money AFAIK; I followed them closely and donated twice. One of the two main plaintiffs (Albert Almeida) was granted a carry permit. The other plaintiff dropped out of the case, not sure why. Since the only plaintiff who remained was granted a permit, there was nothing that could be litigated further. The out of state lawyer who was representing Party of 6 was Stephen Stamboulieh - he was also the lawyer who ran the case that got the stun gun ban thrown out. I met him in person at an event, he's the real deal as far as an RKBA advocate:http://www.sdslaw.us/ I thought the case changed names after Almeida was granted the permit. Then the ones left just gave up? Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 15, 2017 Almeida was the only plaintiff left at the time he was granted the permit. Case ended there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 15, 2017 1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said: Party of 6 didn't run out of money AFAIK; I followed them closely and donated twice. One of the two main plaintiffs (Albert Almeida) was granted a carry permit. The other plaintiff dropped out of the case, not sure why. Since the only plaintiff who remained was granted a permit, there was nothing that could be litigated further. The out of state lawyer who was representing Party of 6 was Stephen Stamboulieh - he was also the lawyer who ran the case that got the stun gun ban thrown out. I met him in person at an event, he's the real deal as far as an RKBA advocate: http://www.sdslaw.us/ i was told by one of the six that they ran outta money. i knew almeida got his ccw, but didn't know the other one...mike tuminelli or something like that......dropped out. there was also a 2nd lawyer i believe. one was from down south, the other was(i think) from commiefornia. either way......THAT GUY or THOSE GUYS are who we should be talking to IF we get far enough along in this....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 15, 2017 7 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: ... . there was also a 2nd lawyer i believe. one was from down south, the other was(i think) from commiefornia. either way......THAT GUY or THOSE GUYS are who we should be talking to IF we get far enough along in this....... Yes, Stephen Stamboulieh is THAT GUY (he's based out of Mississippi, but he worked hard up in NJ). If a coordinated "apply in mass to get denied CCW in mass" action can ever evolve, I bet he'd take the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CAL. .30 M1 2,101 Posted November 15, 2017 53 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said: Yes, Stephen Stamboulieh is THAT GUY (he's based out of Mississippi, but he worked hard up in NJ). If a coordinated "apply in mass to get denied CCW in mass" action can ever evolve, I bet he'd take the case. I do not see that ever happening - wouldn't you then forever have to indicate that you were denied - anywhere, you ever go to apply for any permits licenses 4473 etc? There has to be a better way than to jeopardize your rights elsewhere than this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,365 Posted November 15, 2017 14 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said: I do not see that ever happening - wouldn't you then forever have to indicate that you were denied - anywhere, you ever go to apply for any permits licenses 4473 etc? There has to be a better way than to jeopardize your rights elsewhere than this. IIRC, you would have to indicate you were denied you would have to list it when applying for permits but it would have no impact on your elgibility. I believe this issue was brought up during the Safe Conference. Nothing on a 4473 asks you about being denied for a carry permit. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 15, 2017 IIRC, you would have to indicate you were denied you would have to list it when applying for permits but it would have no impact on your elgibility. I believe this issue was brought up during the Safe Conference. Nothing on a 4473 asks you about being denied for a carry permit.I agree it would have no effect in a free state. Answer Yes Denied by NJ. Issuing person/agency would probably send you a note with your permit to the effect of "About time you smartened up and got the heck out"Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted November 15, 2017 Next time someone wants to pay to listen to Nappen speak think about this. He never did a damn thing with the Pantano case after NJ Supreme Court changed their minds. Yet at the time he said he was taking it to SCOTUS. That should have been a Pro Bono case for such a "great fighter" for our Second Amendment Rights.Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites