Feds urge US military members to scrub social media accounts over ISIS attack concerns

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/01/feds-urge-service-members-to-scrub-social-media-accounts-to-thwart-islamic/

 

 

Nope!      Justifiable need is A judgement call. The judgement is never in the favor of A citizen.

Politician now thats another story

No, if they are that worried about their safety they should just stay on post where they will be protected. Wait...Umm... Oops! I mean, I'm out of here I gotta cash my Judge check and renew my license to carry a handgun.

Didn't read the post, but the answer is no.

 

Didn't read the post, but the answer is no.

 

 

That should be a sticky

 

There's no justifiable need in NJ.  This is a bastion of peace and tranquility with no reason to carry a deadly weapon with you at your whim.

 

/sarcasm off

Justifiable need is basically the same thing as a unicorn, they only exist in fairytales and your imagination.

Justifiable need is a Catch 22.  For anyone still unfamiliar with the book, Catch 22 was that one could stop flying missions in the war just by declaring himself to be insane.  But if you were aware enough to know you were insane, then you could not really be insane, so you would not be excused from duty.  

 

The only thing that constitutes justifiable need in NJ is if one is actually murdered.  At that point, you are determined to have had justifiable need.

Old G beat me to it. Only "Justifiable" for a regular citizen in NJ is to be dead meat. But then you dont have a "Need" any longer, so NO.

Has anyone ever challenged "justifiable need" based on approved apps (The in crowd's reason for need and approval) vs. denied apps (reason legit need apps denied)? Seems like it could be then argued on a prejudice or civil right stand?  

I don't think theres a list of who actually has carry permits, and probably would be denied if a OPRA request is put in.

 

Anyone is free to try and put in a request for the applications

 

http://www.nj.gov/lps/opra/

 

The justifiable need rule needs to be thrown out as too vague and much to open to interpretation as well as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Until that happens, what about amending LEOSA?

 

Lemme add my two cents here. I keep hearing suggestions and proposals for a national carry law valid in all 50 states. What is the feasibility of amending the LEOSA law to also include anyone who can pass a background check and a safety course and, include those who already have carry permits? Would making an amendment to an existing law like LEOSA be easier than proposing a new national carry law from the ground up?

 

Now that the Republicans have both houses, could someone propose amending LEOSA and possibly make it veto proof.

 

I don't know the history of this.

 

When LEOSA was passed, what input did New Jersey give if any?

Could they have stopped the law?

Did they try to stop it?

Was there opposition to the law?

 

(Personally I would prefer constitutional carry across the 50 states, it is unlikely for that to happen.)

I don't think the likes of Cryan, Weinberg, sweeny or any other of the fifth columnists who have infiltrated the legislature would allow that public information to be made public for obvious reasons.  It would take a patriot who has access to that info to release it.  

The NJ state police fought against LEOSA in hearings, ( I think Whitman was gov. at the time) again for obvious reasons.   MANY cops and troopers rely on the ability to carry for their post-law enforcement careers.   If regular people were allowed to carry many of their security jobs would be eliminated such as the retired Union City cop who was allowed to defend himself against 2 armed carjackers while working security for UPS, Regular citizens would be able to apply for these jobs at a lower salary, Currently they have a monopoly on these kind of jobs.  

Just as I mentioned in my post above NJ.Com has a story today about retired cops being hired as "school resource officers"  (whatever that title means) in schools.    This is why NJ cops fight so hard against the 2A in NJ,  Job security.     I would think an American veteran who is looking for a job would be a much better candidate for that job than a double dipping retired cop but since NJ does not follow the Constitution that disqualifies everyone except for retired cops.

The justifiable need rule needs to be thrown out as too vague and much to open to interpretation as well as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Until that happens, what about amending LEOSA?

 

Lemme add my two cents here. I keep hearing suggestions and proposals for a national carry law valid in all 50 states. What is the feasibility of amending the LEOSA law to also include anyone who can pass a background check and a safety course and, include those who already have carry permits? Would making an amendment to an existing law like LEOSA be easier than proposing a new national carry law from the ground up?

 

Now that the Republicans have both houses, could someone propose amending LEOSA and possibly make it veto proof.

 

I don't know the history of this.

 

When LEOSA was passed, what input did New Jersey give if any?

Could they have stopped the law?

Did they try to stop it?

Was there opposition to the law?

 

(Personally I would prefer constitutional carry across the 50 states, it is unlikely for that to happen.)

Drinks on me if Republicans do that. 

You can't amend LEOSA to include anyone with a carry permit. It wouldnt be a "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act". It would require a "CCW Safety Act". I think you should be allowed to carry anywhere in the US if you have a carry permit from any state. I'm pretty much for Constitutional Carry. The problem with that is many see that as an infringement on the states right of determining who should carry in their state. If you left it to the Federal government there might be no constitutional carry anywhere.

 

NJSP really doesn't have any interest in preserving armed security jobs for police retirees. Someone who hires a retired LEO is willing to pay the extra not because he can carry a gun. They're willing to pay for the 25-30 years experience and demonstrated judgement a retired LEO has acquired. A much more extensive vetting process than anyone goes through for a carry permit. Otherwise they would just hire someone for $15-20 an hour like armored car companies do.

 

The analogy of hiring a veteran really doesn't make a lot of sense either. I say this having served AD, NG, and Reserves 1967-2009 and as a LEO 1974-2005. There are varying degrees of basic combat training in the armed forces. More in the Marines and Army, less in the Air Force and Navy. You can find a cook in the Coast Guard who's done hundreds of LE boardings. Being a mechanic in the Marines or a finance clerk in the Air Force doesn't really give you an extensive background that applies to security work. Being a MP, SP, or Master at Arms would. Training as an infantryman teaches you to destroy a target. Not really related to security work. Military and LE rules of engagement are much different.