maintenanceguy

We have a no coolaid rule. No secrets yet - there isn't anything to keep secret yet. My previous post is all there is to know at this point. We came up with a list of questions and we divided up the research. At the next meeting we hope to come up with something worth reporting. At this point, we have more questions than answers.

I'm in an area with no cable. I'm 30 miles from the TV tower farm in Philadelphia. I have one of the old style TV antennas up in my attic. All we have is digital TV. I have cbs, abc, nbc, pbs (2 channels) and a dozen other channels that would have been on UHF if you're old enough to remember when channels 1-13 were VHF and 14-50something were UHF. Each channel has 1 to 3 sub channels but they're usually either duplicate programming or advertising, or stuff that's so bad it's not worth watching. But we're not a TV family - my kids don't know any different. I had cable once in my life for about a year when we moved into an apartment 25 years ago. We never watched it an cancelled. I've never had it since.

The definition of justifiable need in the NJAC came from the court's decision in Sicardi v. State (1971). This decision said that requiring an FID card to purchase a firearm was constitutional. included a paragraph which defined justifiable need. The definition in the NJAC is almost a word for word copy of that definition. So, when the code was adopted in the 90's it was valid and based on a decision of the court. That case (Sicardi) said that restricting who can get a permit is constitutional because the NJ courts already ruled that the 2A didn't protect our rights in Burton v. Sills. (1968). In Burton, the court said two things. It said that the 2A right to bear arms (1) it's not an individual right and (2) that the 2A doesn't apply to state governments (it referred to United States v. Cruikshank (1876) as proof of (2)). And at the time the court might have been right. There was no ruling by SCOTUS on either of those things so you were able to interpret the 2A any way you wanted. But that has changed. Heller said that the 2A is an individual right and McDonald said that it applies to the states. So the foundation of Sicardi - which created the definition of justifiable need - is no longer legally valid. In fact, the definition is a flagrant violation of these two binding rulings.

I think Christie could do so without violating the law. The last time the definition of justifiable need was adopted by the executive branch (not passed by the legislature) was pre Heller and McDonald. At that time it wasn't completely clear (1) whether the second amendment guaranteed an individual or collective right and (2) whether the second amendment prohibition on government infringement applied to the states too. Heller and McDonald cleared that up. It is now clearly an individual right and the 2A clearly applies to the state governments too. A decision by SCOTUS is biding on NJ. The definition of justifiable need is now unconstitutional - according to SCOTUS. I think Christie is legally bound to change the definition to include "self defense" From Heller: [The Second Amendment] “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”. Can't get any clearer than that.

None of that matters. Nobody outside of NJ knows any of this. They sort of know that NJ's bad and they don't want to go there but they really don't know why. Presidential elections are a popularity contest and Christi is too gruff to be popular in Minnesota, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.

It was a great meeting. We didn't make a lot of decisions - but it was our first meeting. We did talk out a lot of different possible scenarios. One of our attendees has already applied for permits and is waiting for an appeal hearing now, his input was very useful. I was very impressed with how knowledgeable and intelligent the whole group was. Everyone had valuable insight and I've been entrenched in 2A stuff for a long time and I learned things. Even though we don't have a final plan yet, the whole concept is much clearer to me now because of everyone's ideas. Something else that makes me think this could be a success - there wasn't a single person with any attitude in the room. That doesn't mean we didn't have different ideas but everyone was focused on the goal of getting carry in NJ and everyone was respectful and really supported each other. Maybe that's easier when you're fighting the same fight. Even the location was good. GolfBattery offered an historical one room schoolhouse for our meeting. It was almost exactly at the geographic center of NJ so it was the most convenient place we could have hoped for. We sat in folding chairs in a circle. I don't think we could have had a better place to meet. We had the place completely to ourselves, it cost us nothing, there was plenty of space. I didn't get the privilege of using the outhouse privy but I understand it was pretty plush. There's still a lot to do. We're hoping to grow the group - we are hoping we can double our numbers in the next meeting - whenever we have that. Thanks but I prefer "Dear Leader". Truthfully, I think there were others at the meeting who were smarter (and younger) who would make better leaders. I'm happy to help anyway I can but after meeting the group, I think "willing worker" is where I belong.

We'll definitely update everyone about how the meeting goes.

I'm looking forward to it.

In Heller, SCOTUS wrote that the Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”. I'm not sure we're going to get more than that out of them. Many, many people are comfortable with the ownership of guns. But getting 5 justices to write specifically that we also have the right to carry them is not as easy a hurdle to overcome.

If I'm right: NJ's law was ruled constitutional by 3rd circuit. MD's law was ruled constitutional by 4th circuit. CA's law ruled unconstititonal by 9th circuit. But that's going to change now. Seems like there is no split and no incentive for SCOTUS to review it. I'm very discouraged now. Of the 4 parts of the country challenging the denial of rights, two were winning. Now none are. A huge step backward.

It's a lot of work to get people together. Some of us are going to drive almost 2 hours to be there. If we come up with a list of "next steps" on Saturday, I think a lot can be accomplished in a forum like this. Not something open to the public because there are going to be parts that we won't want the other side to know are coming. Something to talk about on Saturday.

I believe that dealers are required to record and maybe report and illegal firearms brought in. Do not take it to a dealer. Is there a manufacturer, model number on the flash supressor/muzzle break?

The nice thing about the Cricket is that is is likely to fit your son. A 10/22 is great. Savage makes great 22 bolts but they won't fit a 5 year old. Even the Cricket might need a little trim.

Good. Maybe you can give us all the 3-minute version of the SAPPA plan at the 1:00 meeting. I'm curious what they have to offer.

If anyone missed the details of our get together next Saturday, there's details available here. The time has changed and there are other details you might find useful.

Project CLASP seemed to just fizzle out. I didn't realize that anyone followed through. For the appeal, is it decided based on the information already submitted or do you get to argue your case?

I'd love to hear more details.

A handgun or long gun can be transported from your home to the range and back - unloaded and in a securely fastened container, gun box, or securely tied package. NJ says home to range it doesn't say that the home needs to be in NJ But you can't transport anywhere else. So stopping at your sisters is not allowed. Insane.

Final Meeting Details Can Be Found Here: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/75791-apply-to-be-denied-where-to-meet/?p=959931 Note that there are some changes.

I get it. In my dreams we tar and feather them all for violating the constitution and our civil rights. (by the way, I edited that down two notches to tar and feather). But they took our rights piece by piece. We'll probably end up getting them back that way. But, if we can actually win some court challenges, it can happen in bigger steps. This is a big part of why I'm ready to do this. That, plus I just want to p. off Weinberg, Sweeney, Mainor, and the rest.

So two groups had different ideas and wanted to meet on the same day. I'm not going to let it ruin the day for me. I'll be at the school house. It would be nice if we could all work together. But this is the first time, that i know of, that people are actually getting together to discuss something lots of people have been talking about and wanting to try for a long time. NJ2AS sort of mentioned something about it after the membership demanded it but it was clear they had other plans that were more important. If we decide this is workable and we decide to go for it, I wouldn't be suprised to see other groups want to get involved - especially if we are open to joining forces. Lots of groups like having their little fiefdoms. If we can avoid that attitude, this might bee the meeting that brings NJ's 2A groups together.

All my guns are for shooting. If they don't have some scratches, they're not getting enough outdoor time.

Golf Battery: If you're offer of the building is still good, I'd like to make it official. Can you give us an address? I had originally suggested we meet at noon for lunch. At the time I was thinking we'd be meeting at a restaurant. Now there's another meeting of another group planned for 10:00 the same morning. Some said they wanted to attend both. Someone said that they wanted to attend ours but worked in the morning. Let's skip the lunch part and meet at 1:00pm. I'll update the change in the original post. At the schoolhouse (address pending) at 1:00pm on Saturday, March 28th.

I realize the restoring our rights in NJ will require compromise (unless the courts uphold the constitution) but I agree, I don't want to start out offering such a compromise.

I looked through the SAPPA documents and I'm a little lost. Is the pdf document a proposed bill or just a document that's talking about what a proposed bill might include? It starts out with "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and the General Assembly" which sounds like it's supposed to be a bill. But then, it includes language like: "This “bill” totally nullifies and deletes subsection..." That's not how bills are written. Bills don't "totally nullify". A bill that deletes an existing section of law does so by deleting it - by literally crossing that section out. When a bill creates new language, that language is inserted in brackets. A bill that amends current law is just a copy of the current law with some parts crossed out and some new language inserted in brackets. So, you can seem my confusion - is this a bill or is this a document talking about a bill? There are other issues too. The overall theme seems to be to stop NJ from infringing on 2A rights and it has long elegant preambles all about the constitution. But after it says NJ can't infringe, it says that to get a permit to carry we'll need to submit fingerprints in duplicate, 3 letters of reference, and proof of training? You can't not infringe by set up a framework for infringement. Some parts just don't make sense to me. NJ won't be able to confiscate weapons of the deceased. When there is no heir who can receive the firearm "Said individual will either transfer said firearm(s) to a licensed party (Firearms ID) or a licensed dealer". What "said party"? The dead guy or the non existent heir? Finally, I'll leave you with a quote from the definitions section: This is an exact quote - cut and pasted from the PDF with no editing. "Definitions - “Firearm” handgun, revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, shotgun pump (18”length) or semi-automatic, rifle; (bolt, and/or semi-automatic) regardless of characteristic or caliber size."