25 pages of ripping the court a new one. Wow.

Just read both new docs

BRAVO!!!!!!

 

I hope swiney sh1ts himself

is there  not one judge in this whole state that's says what the court is doing is wrong? 

I just read the entire document and as a non attorney, I understand it. I truly

believe the court understood the charges and merits of the suit. They just chose to ignore the facts

as they were an inconvenience.

The problem is, what do you do when they tell you to eff off and dismiss it fully.

The problem is, what do you do when they tell you to eff off and dismiss it fully.

 

 

That would be the "Dismiss with prejudice" part they were talking about.  From what I've read, that's a action that often seems to be reserved for fraudulent cases. 

 

Not sure what their game plan is in that case, but they have a plan.

The problem is, what do you do when they tell you to eff off and dismiss it fully.

I truely believe that it is getting to the point of the judges/politicians being told "Fuck off, if you can't follow the law that gives you power neither will anyone else".

I truely believe that it is getting to the point of the judges/politicians being told "Fuck off, if you can't follow the law that gives you power neither will anyone else".

it should have hit that point at LEAST a decade ago.

I truely believe that it is getting to the point of the judges/politicians being told "Fuck off, if you can't follow the law that gives you power neither will anyone else".

I sort of agree, but who will be the first, and how many will follow? The issue being that fighting unfair, unconstitutional, or even illegal politically entrenched laws with what it will actually take to fix the problem will constitute major illegal actions. In the end it will not get us what we want but it will cause an even more harsh reaction. When the bad guys are politicians in positions of power, and yes I do recognize judges as politicians, not as impartial jurists, They have what ever force they wish to use against us at their disposal. If there was a way to stop paying taxes for long enough for the state to default you would have an easier time of bringing all the misdeeds of the state to light. But I think it's time to face the fact, that only drastic measures, or a complete write off by enough tax payers will bring about any positive changes to this state. If 30% of the tax base disappeared there would be enough of an impact to rattle the filth in Trenton loose. Although they would plunder as much as they could on their way out. The bottom line is that they just don't care. They don't care about the financials, they don't care about education, they don't care about the constitution, and they certainly couldn't care less about people's safety. They never will either. They only care about their own power and control for personal enrichment. Concealed carry represents a threat to that control, because we will not be dependent on them for what ever protection they allow us. I assure you that there is no sacrifice on our part that is too great for them to make. Protests haven't worked, threats of recall haven't worked, lawsuits haven't worked, the supreme court is not likely to help in any way. Sane, law abiding, good people are simply outnumbered. Funny thing is that many people say, that's just how it is, it's like that no matter where you go. Funny, I never hear that from people who have left for greener pastures.

I truely believe that it is getting to the point of the judges/politicians being told "Fuck off, if you can't follow the law that gives you power neither will anyone else".

 

%$#*ing A....

I sort of agree, but who will be the first, and how many will follow? The issue being that fighting unfair, unconstitutional, or even illegal politically entrenched laws with what it will actually take to fix the problem will constitute major illegal actions. In the end it will not get us what we want but it will cause an even more harsh reaction. When the bad guys are politicians in positions of power, and yes I do recognize judges as politicians, not as impartial jurists, They have what ever force they wish to use against us at their disposal. If there was a way to stop paying taxes for long enough for the state to default you would have an easier time of bringing all the misdeeds of the state to light. But I think it's time to face the fact, that only drastic measures, or a complete write off by enough tax payers will bring about any positive changes to this state. If 30% of the tax base disappeared there would be enough of an impact to rattle the filth in Trenton loose. Although they would plunder as much as they could on their way out. The bottom line is that they just don't care. They don't care about the financials, they don't care about education, they don't care about the constitution, and they certainly couldn't care less about people's safety. They never will either. They only care about their own power and control for personal enrichment. Concealed carry represents a threat to that control, because we will not be dependent on them for what ever protection they allow us. I assure you that there is no sacrifice on our part that is too great for them to make. Protests haven't worked, threats of recall haven't worked, lawsuits haven't worked, the supreme court is not likely to help in any way. Sane, law abiding, good people are simply outnumbered. Funny thing is that many people say, that's just how it is, it's like that no matter where you go. Funny, I never hear that from people who have left for greener pastures.

Its already happening. Its just gonna get worse and worse until BANG.

I sort of agree, but who will be the first, and how many will follow? The issue being that fighting unfair, unconstitutional, or even illegal politically entrenched laws with what it will actually take to fix the problem will constitute major illegal actions. In the end it will not get us what we want but it will cause an even more harsh reaction. When the bad guys are politicians in positions of power, and yes I do recognize judges as politicians, not as impartial jurists, They have what ever force they wish to use against us at their disposal. If there was a way to stop paying taxes for long enough for the state to default you would have an easier time of bringing all the misdeeds of the state to light. But I think it's time to face the fact, that only drastic measures, or a complete write off by enough tax payers will bring about any positive changes to this state. If 30% of the tax base disappeared there would be enough of an impact to rattle the filth in Trenton loose. Although they would plunder as much as they could on their way out. The bottom line is that they just don't care. They don't care about the financials, they don't care about education, they don't care about the constitution, and they certainly couldn't care less about people's safety. They never will either. They only care about their own power and control for personal enrichment. Concealed carry represents a threat to that control, because we will not be dependent on them for what ever protection they allow us. I assure you that there is no sacrifice on our part that is too great for them to make. Protests haven't worked, threats of recall haven't worked, lawsuits haven't worked, the supreme court is not likely to help in any way. Sane, law abiding, good people are simply outnumbered. Funny thing is that many people say, that's just how it is, it's like that no matter where you go. Funny, I never hear that from people who have left for greener pastures.

Its already happening. Its just gonna get worse and worse until BANG.

The issue being that fighting unfair, unconstitutional, or even illegal politically entrenched laws with what it will actually take to fix the problem will constitute major illegal actions. In the end it will not get us what we want but it will cause an even more harsh reaction.

 

From bzer1's post above.

 

The bolded part sounds like a quote from someone living in Communist China or North Korea.  But it's not.  When a gov't uses it's power to silence opposition, you have tyranny.   If that's where we are... or where we are headed, we have a problem.

 

We are talking about a State Gov't and not the Federal Gov't.  Which means in a country where justice still prevails, the Federal Gov't would have the power to act against a state violating federal laws. So there's some legal recourse.  But with a Federal Gov't not inclined to fight.. (the RINOs).... or inclined to actually prefer tyranny...(the Dems)... whatever recourse citizens would have would be in their own hands.  Literally.

 

It's a little easier for people without a lot to lose to take risks.  Rioters that we've seen probably meet that description.  It's not so easy for someone who has a lot to lose to make a decision to put it all at risk.  The question becomes when does a gov't go too far in denying normally civil people their rights to the point that they refuse to allow it to continue?

 

The tyrants are aware of this dilemma, so they operate in incremental fashion... slowly boiling the public to death.. a degree at a time.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats"

- H.L. Mencken

From bzer1's post above.

 

The bolded part sounds like a quote from someone living in Communist China or North Korea.  But it's not.  When a gov't uses it's power to silence opposition, you have tyranny.   If that's where we are... or where we are headed, we have a problem.

 

We are talking about a State Gov't and not the Federal Gov't.  Which means in a country where justice still prevails, the Federal Gov't would have the power to act against a state violating federal laws. So there's some legal recourse.  But with a Federal Gov't not inclined to fight.. (the RINOs).... or inclined to actually prefer tyranny...(the Dems)... whatever recourse citizens would have would be in their own hands.  Literally.

 

It's a little easier for people without a lot to lose to take risks.  Rioters that we've seen probably meet that description.  It's not so easy for someone who has a lot to lose to make a decision to put it all at risk.  The question becomes when does a gov't go too far in denying normally civil people their rights to the point that they refuse to allow it to continue?

 

The tyrants are aware of this dilemma, so they operate in incremental fashion... slowly boiling the public to death.. a degree at a time.

The truth is, I think violence is exactly what they want. It's a calculated risk on their part, and since they are always protected it's not themselves that they are risking. If we react to their tyranny with a well deserved punch to the throat, it will be cast as a riot/insurgency/ pick you derogatory term. They have their propaganda wing ready to print the stories about the gun nuts attacking the government for wanting safe schools or what ever they choose to convey. No I think the very best path is to do exactly what these sacks of human excrement would do. Overload, and ultimately crash the system. I think SAPPA has the right idea. I just think that it should be done on a massive scale. To the point where it can not be ignored. To the point where it so detrimentally impacts the daily workings of the state government, that they are all ready to quit. Or a mass migration out of the state, followed by a massive social media campaign blaming the 10 most powerful dems in the state. Each one needs to be specifically targeted by name, in a "Reverend Al" like fashion. Until something massive, with a lasting detrimental impact takes place, nothing will change. Unfortunately I don't see our side willing to use their own tactics against them. it's just easier to leave a few at a time.   

The truth is, I think violence is exactly what they want. It's a calculated risk on their part, and since they are always protected it's not themselves that they are risking. If we react to their tyranny with a well deserved punch to the throat, it will be cast as a riot/insurgency/ pick you derogatory term. They have their propaganda wing ready to print the stories about the gun nuts attacking the government for wanting safe schools or what ever they choose to convey. No I think the very best path is to do exactly what these sacks of human excrement would do. Overload, and ultimately crash the system. I think SAPPA has the right idea. I just think that it should be done on a massive scale. To the point where it can not be ignored. To the point where it so detrimentally impacts the daily workings of the state government, that they are all ready to quit. Or a mass migration out of the state, followed by a massive social media campaign blaming the 10 most powerful dems in the state. Each one needs to be specifically targeted by name, in a "Reverend Al" like fashion. Until something massive, with a lasting detrimental impact takes place, nothing will change. Unfortunately I don't see our side willing to use their own tactics against them. it's just easier to leave a few at a time.   

 

Right.  I don't think we should be beating the crap out of the politicians.  I'd like to.... but... that's not a game plan.   Make them believe you will take away their power and you will have their full attention.  But personally speaking, I'd rather destroy their political careers rather than make them compliant.  They'd be like that zombie that just keeps getting up off the ground trying to eat you unless they're sent packing.

 

What ever would be done would need to be overwhelming.  A little of this.. and a little of that.... is like trying to repair a sand castle with the tide coming in.  Money would be required.  Truck loads of it.

I read the court-issued documents as well. It seems that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had not been denied a permit. That makes sense. I haven't read all the SAPPA docs but it also seems from what the judge wrote that the points made therein were mostly irrelevant to the case.

 

Am I over-simplifying or could we be reading a different story had he applied and been denied? Is there some basis for re-igniting the "apply to be denied" effort that seems to have itself died many months ago?

 

 

Right.  I don't think we should be beating the crap out of the politicians.  I'd like to.... but... that's not a game plan.   Make them believe you will take away their power and you will have their full attention.  But personally speaking, I'd rather destroy their political careers rather than make them compliant.  They'd be like that zombie that just keeps getting up off the ground trying to eat you unless they're sent packing.

 

What ever would be done would need to be overwhelming.  A little of this.. and a little of that.... is like trying to repair a sand castle with the tide coming in.  Money would be required.  Truck loads of it.

The sand castle analogy is perfect.

I read the court-issued documents as well. It seems that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had not been denied a permit. That makes sense. I haven't read all the SAPPA docs but it also seems from what the judge wrote that the points made therein were mostly irrelevant to the case.

 

Am I over-simplifying or could we be reading a different story had he applied and been denied? Is there some basis for re-igniting the "apply to be denied" effort that seems to have itself died many months ago?

 

As far as we know, he has not ever applied for a carry permit in NJ.  I didn't understand it, but they said their case had nothing to do with requiring standing on the issue of permit denial.

 

Maybe.. on the Apply-to-be-Denied effort.  I think we'd need thousands and thousands of people applying, or it will get lost in the noise.

The sand castle analogy is perfect.

thanks.

 

Sometimes I do good metaphor....

As far as we know, he has not ever applied for a carry permit in NJ. I didn't understand it, but they said their case had nothing to do with requiring standing on the issue of permit denial.

 

Maybe.. on the Apply-to-be-Denied effort. I think we'd need thousands and thousands of people applying, or it will get lost in the noise.

Even one application would have presumably conferred standing to sue.

Even one application would have presumably conferred standing to sue.

Even one application would have presumably conferred standing to sue.

True, but perhaps a class action lawsuit would have more impact?

True, but perhaps a class action lawsuit would have more impact?

Point is that 100 denials out of 100 would probably suffice. Not a lawyer here. I kindof take literally that stuff about "shall not be infringed."

Are there any plans to reach out to any tv, paper, news or radio media outlet that will listen and run this sickening corruption story ? People get national attention for far less important issues. Maybe throw in that a baker refuses a ccw permit holder a cake and they will run it on prime time.....

Point is that 100 denials out of 100 would probably suffice. Not a lawyer here. I kindof take literally that stuff about "shall not be infringed."

Sure100/100 certainly shows a pattern. but 19,995 out of 20,000 with everyone suing brings scale to the level of corruption. A big problem deserves big attention. 100 people can be swept under the carpet, or spun, but 20,000 or more not as easy. And in desperate times they could issue to a handful to make a suit go away. They won't even consider issuing 20,000 or more to make the suit go away. If they do, then just keep upping the number with subsequent suits until everyone has their carry permit. They need to be trampled under foot.

 

 

When I tell my friends from free America what it's like here they don't believe me. After sending one a bunch of articles about the nutty gun laws, and the out of control corruption, he told me he thought I was making it up. After a couple of days he called me back and said..."You have to get the hell out of there".

Sure100/100 certainly shows a pattern. but 19,995 out of 20,000 with everyone suing brings scale to the level of corruption. A big problem deserves big attention. 100 people can be swept under the carpet, or spun, but 20,000 or more not as easy. And in desperate times they could issue to a handful to make a suit go away. They won't even consider issuing 20,000 or more to make the suit go away. If they do, then just keep upping the number with subsequent suits until everyone has their carry permit. They need to be trampled under foot.

 

 

When I tell my friends from free America what it's like here they don't believe me. After sending one a bunch of articles about the nutty gun laws, and the out of control corruption, he told me he thought I was making it up. After a couple of days he called me back and said..."You have to get the hell out of there".

20,000 people? You're dreaming. Even if possible, they'd figure out some way around any lawsuit. 

Are there any plans to reach out to any tv, paper, news or radio media outlet that will listen and run this sickening corruption story ? People get national attention for far less important issues. Maybe throw in that a baker refuses a ccw permit holder a cake and they will run it on prime time.....

96% of newspaper reporters are liberal. Good luck getting sympathy (or even interest) from them. And the citizens of this state don't give a shit about your 2nd Amendment rights. This has been amply demonstrated numerous times. If anyone but us cared the laws would have been changed decades ago.

20,000 people? You're dreaming. Even if possible, they'd figure out some way around any lawsuit. 

CCW in this state is a dream, I figure if you're gonna dream, you should dream big.