First I would like to thank all of the people who testified at today's hearing in Trenton. Like many who could not make it I listen to the hearing online and it appeared to me that the Pro Gun support overwhelmingly out numbered the Anti Gun proponents. Through out the hearing you could hear members of the Committee chit chatting and generally scoffing at the people testifying. At one point Charlies Manior stated that this was his meeting when called out for not listening. Could we make an argument that despite the turn out and on short notice and staggering opposition to these bills the Committee had made determination on the hearing before it took place. In fact I believe they actually wanted to vote BEFORE any testimony was given. if this is not corruption is it not a the very least a clear cut violation of ethics? I know there is records of everything that transpired. I am just appalled by the Committees decision to release these bills to the Assembly floor after what I listened to today. Maybe if they were paying attention they would feel the same way.

So what argument are you trying to make here?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I don't think it's illegal to be a gigantic asshole. Honestly, it'd be impossible to prove that they made their decisions before the meeting, even if it's pretty obvious. Even then, what are you going to charge them with? Being biased? Is there a specific statute you can cite?

No, not from what I understand of the process. My understanding is that, unlike judges, the committee members are not required to remain impartial during the legislative process. They simply vote "in the best interests" of those they represent. If their constituents don't like how they've voted in the past, then they can vote for someone else in the next election. Problem is, the interest and knowledge of the subject matter throughout the general population has plummeted in recent times.

The hearing served no purpose IMO. I am not very familiar with the legislative process but shouldn't the people testifying carry some legitimate weight. I would think that if you have a building overflowing with people testifying and opposing proposed legislation yet it still passes their has to be some sort of case to have the bills pulled from the Assembly Floor. I will say I am livid right now and can hardly articulate what I am thinking and feeling right now. Today was a huge blow for everyone maybe I am just grasping for straws.

No, not from what I understand of the process. My understanding is that, unlike judges, the committee members are not required to remain impartial during the legislative process. They simply vote "in the best interests" of those they represent. If their constituents don't like how they've voted in the past, then they can vote for someone else in the next election. Problem is, the interest and knowledge of the subject matter throughout the general population has plummeted in recent times.

Ok so basically they can do what ever the hell they want. I thought they were supposed to remain impartial hence the hearing.

Ok so basically they can do what ever the hell they want. I thought they were supposed to remain impartial hence the hearing.

 

The word "hearing" implies a judicial type of review of the bill. The judiciary has to remain impartial, I don't believe the legislature has the same obligation.

 

The sham we witnessed was a meeting. The committee holds it in public and allows the people to attend so their positions can be heard. People spoke and the committee took note. While that committee meeting may have had the largest turnout they've seen in a while, the attendees did not represent a majority of the constituencies of any of the Assemblypeople. They still have to vote as a representative of their respective districts, not to whoever shows up in Trenton.

 

Also, they were deciding whether or not to refer each bill to a full vote. Technically I guess a member could vote in the affrimative to bring it to the rest of the Assembly not because they support it, but because they think it is an important bill and shouldn't be killed in the committee phase. That'd be a pretty noble thing to do, but a member would have to be sure that once the bill hit the full Assembly, that it had no chance of passing.

I will say I am livid right now and can hardly articulate what I am thinking and feeling right now.

I feel the same way. Don't articulate anything that will get you in trouble.

Corruption? In NJ? No way!?

 

Forget about the fact that one of the committee members introduced one of the Bills. No conflict of interest there...

 

Just wow.

No, not from what I understand of the process. My understanding is that, unlike judges, the committee members are not required to remain impartial during the legislative process. They simply vote "in the best interests" of those they represent. If their constituents don't like how they've voted in the past, then they can vote for someone else in the next election. Problem is, the interest and knowledge of the subject matter throughout the general population has plummeted in recent times.

 

Maybe it's time we start setting up tables outside our local grocery stores or at malls (which NJ appears to have no shortage of) and educate people who otherwise would not take the time to educate themselves. We could draft simple flyers, nothing subjective, just a simple piece of paper explaining current laws and proposed laws. If done in a polite, non-aggressive manner we might be able to open some eyes. There are a lot of people out there who do not have the slightest idea what it takes to buy a gun in this State, it's time to inform people.