Lots of differing opinions here.  Keep in mind on the other side they are all on the same page. 

 

I myself would be happy to get concealed carry any way we can and fight the rest of the fight later.  I certainly would try to get everything but would settle for just getting our rights restored for now.

 

Has there been an update?  I didn't see anything last night.

would that include carrying a smart gun only?

Latest update on the Brief

 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015- Following the letter to Chief Judge Simandle several phone calls were made to his office inquiring as to the status of Nick's request for him to look into the proceedings of this case.  Typical and not unexpected, no one there would make a commitment to any statement as to whether the Chief Judge had even seen the letter yet.  We will continue to call them and will update any information we get, when we get it.

 

On the other front, the delay by Judge Shipp's Court regarding rulings or information has been, to say the least, unacceptable.  As a result, we have prepared yet another letter to Judge Shipp informing him that this delay has gone on way too long and is beginning to border upon obstruction of justice.  Please read that letter here:  Letter to Judge Shipp December 1, 2015

 

Our next step may will be to file a "Writ of Mandamus".  If and when we decide to do that we will fill everyone in on what it is and what it might accomplish.

 

Thanks,

Dwight

And my final comment on NCRA............

 

I don't know how to make it more clear to you gentlemen who fear this, that the felonies which will get someone put into the database will be related to violent acts.  We made it very clear in  the descriptive writings located on the SAPPA  and NCRA web pages that these things still need to be worked out by committees as they prepare this bill for a vote.

 

You all need to remember this bill we put together is only a concept and not the final polished stone.

 

And for those who get sickened by the thought of the 1.5 million people (where that number came from I have no idea) who might be on the terror watch list, the panel would also need to discuss in detail exactly what it is that gets one on that list.  Again, no one would agree to putting people on there who write letters to editors or who might have a controversial website. (If that were the case I'd be on the top of that list)  My latest article is a good example of this: http://www.tpath.org/common-sense.html

 

And finally for all those who like how the background system now works, how many anal exams law abiding citizens must get before they can purchase a firearm, how many data bases, both state and federal which list all your weapons, all your ammo and where you live, fear not, because you are very likely to keep that system.  The NCRA will never be permitted by leftists and a few not so left.

 

As I stated above this will be the last comment I make on this. It is evident that some will never understand the value of tracking dangerous felons as opposed to tracking law abiding gun owners.  Sometimes a great meal is less attractive and tasty because someone put some cauliflower on our plate.  But in the long run, the cauliflower might prove to be a healthy addition.

 

I will however, continue to record ideas generated by you guys to put into the bill before we begin sending it out to Congressmen and US Senators. There have been some excellent suggestions.

 

Dwight

I appreciate all your efforts for all of us.... dont mind the peanut gallery

I appreciate all your efforts for all of us.... dont mind the peanut gallery

i think we ALL appreciate their efforts. but that list......it's just not necessary to eliminate our system. all we need to do is to run just like most other states. no special lists. no lack of tracking bad guys, nothing.

And my final comment on NCRA............

 

I don't know how to make it more clear to you gentlemen who fear this, that the felonies which will get someone put into the database will be related to violent acts. We made it very clear in the descriptive writings located on the SAPPA and NCRA web pages that these things still need to be worked out by committees as they prepare this bill for a vote.

 

You all need to remember this bill we put together is only a concept and not the final polished stone.

 

And for those who get sickened by the thought of the 1.5 million people (where that number came from I have no idea) who might be on the terror watch list, the panel would also need to discuss in detail exactly what it is that gets one on that list. Again, no one would agree to putting people on there who write letters to editors or who might have a controversial website. (If that were the case I'd be on the top of that list) My latest article is a good example of this: http://www.tpath.org/common-sense.html

 

And finally for all those who like how the background system now works, how many anal exams law abiding citizens must get before they can purchase a firearm, how many data bases, both state and federal which list all your weapons, all your ammo and where you live, fear not, because you are very likely to keep that system. The NCRA will never be permitted by leftists and a few not so left.

 

As I stated above this will be the last comment I make on this. It is evident that some will never understand the value of tracking dangerous felons as opposed to tracking law abiding gun owners. Sometimes a great meal is less attractive and tasty because someone put some cauliflower on our plate. But in the long run, the cauliflower might prove to be a healthy addition.

 

I will however, continue to record ideas generated by you guys to put into the bill before we begin sending it out to Congressmen and US Senators. There have been some excellent suggestions.

 

Dwight

we have made suggestions. Remove references to the terrorist watch list and ammo purchases.

 

As for the 1.5 million number. The Wikipedia page had it listed as 400,000 names and 1,000,000 entries with as of September 2008 with 1600 names suggested to be added daily and 600 removed. Links provided by the ACLU have it listed as slightly higher than that. It is unknown how many on the list are American citizens.

 

You continue to post that only violent felons will be added to the database. I'd be fine with that. But that's not what is written in your synopsis.

 

We also can't look at this with NJ blinders. In many states, the current system works. Not great, but it works. I'd imagine not a ton of people in Montana get denied that shouldn't be. And there are no hoops. So I guess those people would be trading background checks on ammo for the disappearance of the dealers 4473 records.

I see the bill going nowhere fast because why would the government give up their current system of having access to that information. I mean first of all, they would give up their only way to audit a dealer. So really this bill could help enable sales to felons by shady dealers.

...how many anal exams law abiding citizens must get before they can purchase a firearm

Latest update on the Brief

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015- Following the letter to Chief Judge Simandle several phone calls were made to his office inquiring as to the status of Nick's request for him to look into the proceedings of this case. Typical and not unexpected, no one there would make a commitment to any statement as to whether the Chief Judge had even seen the letter yet. We will continue to call them and will update any information we get, when we get it.

On the other front, the delay by Judge Shipp's Court regarding rulings or information has been, to say the least, unacceptable. As a result, we have prepared yet another letter to Judge Shipp informing him that this delay has gone on way too long and is beginning to border upon obstruction of justice. Please read that letter here: Letter to Judge Shipp December 1, 2015

Our next step may will be to file a "Writ of Mandamus". If and when we decide to do that we will fill everyone in on what it is and what it might accomplish.

Thanks,

Dwight

"When judges become corrupt , all is lost."

Please fight the good fight. I will be donating to your organization today

 

...how many anal exams law abiding citizens must get before they can purchase a firearm

He did sneak that in there huh

He did sneak that in there huh

The bad part is that I was thinking the same thing, but decided to keep that thought to myself.

The bad part is that I was thinking the same thing, but decided to keep that thought to myself.

butt you didnt

butt you didnt

Yeah, I don't know what held me back. Perhaps I'm still sad about getting scolded for my mountain lion references.

It was more of a stern talking to

Lmao

The real problem is that we have so many people in this country who might reasonably or even unreasonably be suspected of engaging in or sympathizing with terrorists, and that there are so many "crimes" today that so many individuals may be deemed guilty of one. I categorize someone who mistakenly miscalculated his checking balance in a whole other category from a person who plays the knockout game, yet I'll bet that many many check-bouncers have received longer sentences than those animals on the streets of major cities.

 

Our mass immigration has become a convenient excuse for classifying whole swaths of people as dangerous, eventually leading to me, and as a result gives life to these scary arguments about trading liberty for (false) security. As we saw from today's events in California the fears are not completely unfounded. As the crime stats from our invaders from the south suggest, we should be concerned. They're here, guys. 

 

I've received pushback before for saying that no right is absolute, e.g. shouting "Fire!: in a crowded theatre, peaceably assembling on Rte. 80 on a Monday in late April around 7:30 am. The definition of legal search has evolved back and forth as well. 

 

Similarly 2nd Amendment rights are also subject to reasonable regulation. Does a national database fall into that category or is it an unacceptable intrusion? I'm not sure.

 

We sort of know though from the post-Sandy Hook hysteria, when the passage of laws requiring universal background checks barely failed despite efforts from the national 2nd Amendment Foundation, which backed the proposed law as a potential bargaining chip for freeing NJ, MD, and HI (and I believe Illinois) from their draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. At the time Gottlieb suggested that we might trade that intrusion, which I admit would have been a pain in the ass, for universal reciprocity. Predictably, the NRA lobbied against even considering the law and that was that.

 

From where I'm sitting that sounded like a pretty good deal though. Horse-trading. 

 

I've been criticized for whining that NRA does nothing for NJ. After all, don't I care about gun owners in the rest of the country? Let me turn that one around. Don't you care that you enjoy your 2nd amendment rights more or less unfettered, and I barely enjoy them at all? That I got harassed by some asshole ranger for transporting my shotgun in a box but not a "case"?

 

If you trade the background check crap for me getting the right to carry when I'm out hiking or driving through Essex county I promise to support your right to carry at the Girl Scout July 4th Barbecue at the Holy Spirit of Jesus Shrine in Abilene, KS. I promise.

The real problem is that we have so many people in this country who might reasonably or even unreasonably be suspected of engaging in or sympathizing with terrorists, and that there are so many "crimes" today that so many individuals may be deemed guilty of one. I categorize someone who mistakenly miscalculated his checking balance in a whole other category from a person who plays the knockout game, yet I'll bet that many many check-bouncers have received longer sentences than those animals on the streets of major cities.

 

Our mass immigration has become a convenient excuse for classifying whole swaths of people as dangerous, eventually leading to me, and as a result gives life to these scary arguments about trading liberty for (false) security. As we saw from today's events in California the fears are not completely unfounded. As the crime stats from our invaders from the south suggest, we should be concerned. They're here, guys. 

 

I've received pushback before for saying that no right is absolute, e.g. shouting "Fire!: in a crowded theatre, peaceably assembling on Rte. 80 on a Monday in late April around 7:30 am. The definition of legal search has evolved back and forth as well. 

 

Similarly 2nd Amendment rights are also subject to reasonable regulation. Does a national database fall into that category or is it an unacceptable intrusion? I'm not sure.

 

We sort of know though from the post-Sandy Hook hysteria, when the passage of laws requiring universal background checks barely failed despite efforts from the national 2nd Amendment Foundation, which backed the proposed law as a potential bargaining chip for freeing NJ, MD, and HI (and I believe Illinois) from their draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. At the time Gottlieb suggested that we might trade that intrusion, which I admit would have been a pain in the ass, for universal reciprocity. Predictably, the NRA lobbied against even considering the law and that was that.

 

From where I'm sitting that sounded like a pretty good deal though. Horse-trading. 

 

I've been criticized for whining that NRA does nothing for NJ. After all, don't I care about gun owners in the rest of the country? Let me turn that one around. Don't you care that you enjoy your 2nd amendment rights more or less unfettered, and I barely enjoy them at all? That I got harassed by some asshole ranger for transporting my shotgun in a box but not a "case"?

 

If you trade the background check crap for me getting the right to carry when I'm out hiking or driving through Essex county I promise to support your right to carry at the Girl Scout July 4th Barbecue at the Holy Spirit of Jesus Shrine in Abilene, KS. I promise.

 

 

so it's all about you?  you want other people to give up their rights and beliefs because you live in a place where those rights are taken from you?  i dont have the right to carry either in nj, and i wouldn't TRADE the rights of free america for a national registration scheme just so i could.  plus you are assuming that full background checks, which are the reason a wife can't take her husbands gun to the range in nj, wouldn't pass, and national recirprocity, which would get dragged through court, wouldn't be killed in a lawsuit.  

ELITISM????

 

I work more than 60 hours each week on this problem, trying to come up with something that could once and for all keep the government out of our lives, as much as is humanly possible.

I have been doing this for several years now.

And because I don't agree with everything a few of you guys are putting out, I'm a disgusting elitist?????   

 

One last thing before my final exit.

No one has ever been adjudicated a felon for mistakenly overdrawing a checking account.  Habitually and continuously, perhaps.

 

And this terrorist watch list a few of you are so worried about being on.  If they are watching you, whether or not we ever do get the NCR System in place, and you are on that list, the background check system will find you. 

 

Anyway, have at it, have at each other, but this elitist is bailing out.

I'm disconnecting from this thread.

 

Thanks to all those who have stood with me and understanding my intentions.  I really do appreciate all of you.

Dwight

Dwight- conversing around here tends to get charged at times and I'm not going to try and tell you what to do but dont be a stranger with notices of updates please. A lot of us are very interested. Still have Sappa on my favorites toolbar so I can check now and then anyway. Thanks for all so far.

i disagree with you, but i still understand your intentions.  we're both adults (although i choose not to act like one regularly)

 

seems like a whole lot of back and forth for a summary of a bill that i doubt any of us thinks has a chance in hell of passing.  

 

 

i for one find your lawsuit very fascinating.  it quite surprises me your support for the whole terrorist watch list thing based on your lawsuit but who knows.  i guess i just don't get why it can't be as simple as

 

1. certain felonies bar you from gun ownership

2. you commit a felony and get caught

3. you have your day in court

4. you are convicted of said felony

5. you are now a convicted felon and can't pass a background check

 

my issue isn't with the fact that people are on a list.  or even the government keeping the list.  my issue is with the idea that 

 

1. getting on a list bars you from gun ownership

2. its now your problem to argue why you shouldn't be on the list

3. government gets to add people to the list whenever/however they feel like

 

coming from NJ, i just thought we would be tired of being guilty before innocent. 

^ What siderman said.  Keep in mind that everyone here has the same common end goal.  While some of us use harsh constructive criticism, it is still constructive criticism and what I feel is a healthy conversation amongst peers as opposed to the full opposition that you would receive from the "other" side.  My guess would be that even those who disagree with you on some points are in favor of your general plan to move forward and want to support and stay updated on SAPPA. 

 

If you guys want to keep discussing the details of the proposed bill, I think a separate thread would be more appropriate since many of us have this thread tagged for immediate alerts on all responses and would prefer to only receive those alerts for SAPPA news and updates.  That being said, I apologize to those of us who are in this situation since this very post is not SAPPA specific.

 

Please keep up the good work and keep us updated!

so it's all about you?  you want other people to give up their rights and beliefs because you live in a place where those rights are taken from you?  i dont have the right to carry either in nj, and i wouldn't TRADE the rights of free america for a national registration scheme just so i could.  plus you are assuming that full background checks, which are the reason a wife can't take her husbands gun to the range in nj, wouldn't pass, and national recirprocity, which would get dragged through court, wouldn't be killed in a lawsuit.  

I love the drama in some of these posts. I raised a question as to what reasonable regulation might be, that's all. I wasn't asking anybody to give anything up. A national database of terrorists, criminals and institutionalized individuals who should not own guns is not such a bad idea on surface, and as SAPPA has pointed out it is precisely the OPPOSITE of registry. The problem is who winds up on it. Does an anti-(whatever) editorial get me on the list? How about being falsely arrested for a "hate crime"? Before you know it the definition of terrorist will drift as surely as occurred for the term "sexual assault." And as with any federally-run enterprise it is bound to have gaps and inefficiencies.

 

But let me turn this around. Is it all about you? What would you trade of your peripheral personal freedoms to assure the rights of people in three states? If I read you correctly the answer is "nothing." Not even acquiescing to a list that will not have your name on it. Theoretically, because we don't know what they'll get in return. But you won't even consider it.

 

And that, individuals reading this from outside the glorious 21 counties of a former state known as New Jersey, is why a growing number of residents of said 21 counties who value their rights feel betrayed.

I love the drama in some of these posts. I raised a question as to what reasonable regulation might be, that's all. I wasn't asking anybody to give anything up. A national database of terrorists, criminals and institutionalized individuals who should not own guns is not such a bad idea on surface, and as SAPPA has pointed out it is precisely the OPPOSITE of registry. The problem is who winds up on it. Does an anti-(whatever) editorial get me on the list? How about being falsely arrested for a "hate crime"? Before you know it the definition of terrorist will drift as surely as occurred for the term "sexual assault." And as with any federally-run enterprise it is bound to have gaps and inefficiencies.

 

But let me turn this around. Is it all about you? What would you trade of your peripheral personal freedoms to assure the rights of people in three states? If I read you correctly the answer is "nothing." Not even acquiescing to a list that will not have your name on it. Theoretically, because we don't know what they'll get in return. But you won't even consider it.

 

And that, individuals reading this from outside the glorious 21 counties of a former state known as New Jersey, is why a growing number of residents of said 21 counties who value their rights feel betrayed.

 

you are right, i'm not one to bargain with constitutional rights so i wouldn't support giving up part of one to gain part of another.  i 100% realize thats a lose/lose scenario, since just about every avenue is exhausted in NJ with the exception of a revolution (and I'm not even advocating that).  and my comment wasn't about any terrorist watch list, which i only have a problem with because i have this thing i believe in most call due process.  it was about your national universal background check support for national reciprocity comment

you are right, i'm not one to bargain with constitutional rights so i wouldn't support giving up part of one to gain part of another.  i 100% realize thats a lose/lose scenario, since just about every avenue is exhausted in NJ with the exception of a revolution (and I'm not even advocating that).  and my comment wasn't about any terrorist watch list, which i only have a problem with because i have this thing i believe in most call due process.  it was about your national universal background check support for national reciprocity comment

This tradeoff stuff is theoretical. At the time Gottlieb was hoping the UBC bill would get out of committee, where it could be debated and potential horse-trading might have occurred. He mentioned reciprocity as one possible trade but WTF knows? The senate would still have to vote on it, not that that's much of a consolation. 

 

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, period, and to everything those plain words imply. We don't have a constitutional right not to have our names NOT appear on an ineligibility database that might be used for several things, including determining eligibility for a gun purchase. It may be argued as well -- and I'm not making that point just raising it -- that qualifications may be imposed on gun purchases which fall within the reasonable boundaries of sensible regulation. We can begin with: Should a seven year old be allowed to purchase a handgun? Again, I'm not saying where a reasonable line may be drawn but just raising the point.

 

For my own curiosity, are there any types of individuals, are there any circumstances, that would cause you to renege on a private handgun sale? Use your imagination That is what all these databases and background checks purport to do. Whether they are capable of doing that I can't say.

I love the drama in some of these posts. I raised a question as to what reasonable regulation might be, that's all. I wasn't asking anybody to give anything up. A national database of terrorists, criminals and institutionalized individuals who should not own guns is not such a bad idea on surface, and as SAPPA has pointed out it is precisely the OPPOSITE of registry. The problem is who winds up on it. Does an anti-(whatever) editorial get me on the list? How about being falsely arrested for a "hate crime"? Before you know it the definition of terrorist will drift as surely as occurred for the term "sexual assault." And as with any federally-run enterprise it is bound to have gaps and inefficiencies.

 

The definition of sexual assault will always be someone convicted of a crime and the definition of terrorist will always be people not convicted of anything.

The definition of sexual assault will always be someone convicted of a crime and the definition of terrorist will always be people not convicted of anything.

This is true

well that escalated quickly/suddenly

Thanks to our keyboard "patriots". I normally don't comment on the political issues on the board and I have never called out other members for being ridiculous but enough is enough. In my humble opinion, The SAPPA group has done more to attempt restoring our 2nd amendment rights than any other group or individuals in this state. That is not a knock on any one. I just think their strategy is extremely well thought out and amazing well researched. Time will tell whether their efforts are successful.

 

They even are trying to craft (as in initial draft) legislation that will protect the vast majority of US citizens from government overreach. When they shared it with us on this forum, I could not believe how some of you reacted. Remember, this is an initial go around. All of are rights are not going to be restored or protected in one shot. It has taken the liberal progressives a century to get this country to the sad state we are in. It is going to take multiple efforts and events to move the needle back to where it belongs. That is if it can be.

 

A Wiseman once said "you cannot eat the elephant in one bite". I think that the SAPPA group is taking some big bites. Lets support them in a positive manner. Not calling them names or insulting them. I for one am greatly appreciative of their efforts and all others that are trying to do the right thing.

 

Dwight and Nick - although we have never met, thank you and keep up the great work. Please forgive some of our overzealous brethren and continue to post your updates on the forum. I, for one greatly looked forward to them in the past

 

God bless America

Also enjoyed the updates. It was really nice to be in the loop. Keep up the good work guys

Keep fighting the good fight guys !

any updates on the original thread.