Mrs. Peel

ANJRPC Carry Case -Tonight: 11 p.m.(WWOR-TV Channel 9) - Chasing News

47 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

https://gunforhire.com/master-playlist/

Scott Bach, Dan Schmutter (attorneys for ANJRPC) were on as well as a rep (whose name escapes me) from the NRA. It was a good listen. 

The Rep's name is Darren Goens.  Darren & I have spoken often on 2A matters in NJ, as he also attends the ANJR&PC Board meetings when he's in town.  Darren is a cool guy, cigar smoker like myself & is a Facebook friend of mine & a full-time NRA lobbyist who lives in NJ and works in NJ & surrounding states for the NRA.   A trusted 2A Patriot!  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 1:55 PM, Old Glock guy said:

I think Scott may have muddied things a bit by referring to SCOTUS decisions that police do not have a duty to protect.  Bringing that up sounded like an attack on police.  All he needed to do was to state the obvious, that police cannot be everywhere.  

With respect, I disagree with your sentiment.  I think it's enlightening for the public at-large to be told the legal truth.  A truth that remains well-hidden from society at-large, and we the gun community are guilty of misinformation if we don't use it.  It's going to be a SCOTUS case.  Folks want to know WHY the case has merit.  Without tipping our cards to the Anti's, Scott's dialogue allows the UNINFORMED to be put into a place where they have to THINK.  And he accomplishes just THAT with a gripping example in Carol Bowne to tie it all together in the same segment.  We shared this to the CNJFO Facebook page and we're not clouded by years of hoping the state association DOES SOMETHING.  This case, this interview, is the result of a crap-ton of behind-the-scenes work with Schmutter & Nappen.  It's also part of what I meant by previously writing that "Plans are afoot"...  

Edited by Smokin .50
The Zeke-ster GOT ME: missiN' an "N"!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I don't disagree with you at all.  Scott's problem was that he was forced into a soundbite, with no time for detailed explanation, so a simpler explanation might have served him better.

BTW, if that were me in that exact same situation, no way I would have been able to handle it as gracefully as Scott did, so I didn't mean to sound overly critical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smokin .50 said:

With respect, I disagree with your sentiment.  I think it's enlightening for the public at-large to be told the legal truth.  A truth that remains well-hidden from society at-large, and we the gun community are guilty of misinformation if we don't use it.  It's going to be a SCOTUS case.  Folks want to know WHY the case has merit.  Without tipping our cards to the Anti's, Scott's dialogue allows the UNIFORMED to be put into a place where they have to THINK.  And he accomplishes just THAT with a gripping example in Carol Bowne to tie it all together in the same segment.  We shared this to the CNJFO Facebook page and we're not clouded by years of hoping the state association DOES SOMETHING.  This case, this interview, is the result of a crap-ton of behind-the-scenes work with Schmutter & Nappen.  It's also part of what I meant by previously writing that "Plans are afoot"...  

Uninformed.

 

uniformed is representative of PD, unless that was your intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Uninformed.

 

uniformed is representative of PD, unless that was your intention.

Zeke:  Those darn "n's" are so easy to miss on the keyboard these days, lol!  So good catch!

In hiNdsight, the UNIFORMED (too) in blue may need to get used to folks walkin'-around with sidearms while wearin' regular haircuts instead of sportin' the "High & Tights"...  So yeppers, an uNiNteNded consequeNce of my bad spelliN' may come iNto play, lol! 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Dave, I don't disagree with you at all.  Scott's problem was that he was forced into a soundbite, with no time for detailed explanation, so a simpler explanation might have served him better.

BTW, if that were me in that exact same situation, no way I would have been able to handle it as gracefully as Scott did, so I didn't mean to sound overly critical.  

I totally get it, so no problem here at all.  My forte is writing.  Put me under tv lights & I'd sound like a blithering idiot.  Besides, as a Photog I'm used to being ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAMERA, lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Zeke:  Those darn "n's" are so easy to miss on the keyboard these days, lol!  So good catch!

In hiNdsight, the UNIFORMED (too) in blue may need to get used to folks walkin'-around with sidearms while wearin' regular haircuts instead of sportin' the "High & Tights"...  So yeppers, an uNiNteNded consequeNce of my bad spelliN' may come iNto play, lol! 

Lol! I know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Uninformed.

 

uniformed is representative of PD, unless that was your intention.

Zeke is editing our posts now for errors? ZEKE??!! OMG!! :facepalm:

Is there a chill in the air? Because I'm pretty sure Hell just froze over.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Zeke is editing our posts now for errors? ZEKE??!! OMG!! :facepalm:

Is there a chill in the air? Because I'm pretty sure Hell just froze over.

Well, it’s a warmer winter...:B:):

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

@Smokin .50 Are you aware of the timeline for responses and such? I can't remember from the Drake case. 

I don't remember either.  Dan Schmutter is the personage to ask.  Right now ANJR&PC's case is looking for additional victims that were denied so as to enable them to prove that the approval rate is nil instead of what the state is boasting (90+%)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

I don't remember either.  Dan Schmutter is the personage to ask.  Right now ANJR&PC's case is looking for additional victims that were denied so as to enable them to prove that the approval rate is nil instead of what the state is boasting (90+%)!

Part of the problem is the local PD's tell you you won't get the permit so people say to hell with it.

I haven't gone to any training, so I don't meet qualifications even if JN didn't exist.  I really need to change that.

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