You can use "inalienable rights" if you prefer.

I'm fine with it, as long as God gives us concealed or open carry in NJ without the Justifiable need standard. Until then I'll put my faith behind the PO6...

I'll simply end it here and sorry for "hijacking" this thread. But do you mean to say if the NJ Judges and politicians were bound and accountable to the tenets in the Bible, NJ would [still] be a corrupt, No issue state? Sorry, these people have no convictions and no one to be accountable to with the exception of money and power and they are not accountable to you, only winning. The further we move from God the rights diminish---it's a fact and I guarantee NJ, CA, etc would be a different state if God was at the core to keep politicians in check and do the right thing---even when no one is looking. Do a search, most true, Pro-gun Judges and Politicians believe in God and his Word and with out that belief there is little to keep them in check and in line with God given or natural rights.So far, how's it working out with corrupt Judges and politicians? No too good!.I'll leave it there and move on----

I'll simply end it here and sorry for "hijacking" this thread. But do you mean to say if the NJ Judges and politicians were bound and accountable to the tenets in the Bible, NJ would [still] be a corrupt, No issue state? Sorry, these people have no convictions and no one to be accountable to with the exception of money and power and they are not accountable to you, only winning. The further we move from God the rights diminish---it's a fact and I guarantee NJ, CA, etc would be a different state if God was at the core to keep politicians in check and do the right thing---even when no one is looking. Do a search, most true, Pro-gun Judges and Politicians believe in God and his Word and with out that belief there is little to keep them in check and in line with God given or natural rights.So far, how's it working out with corrupt Judges and politicians? No too good!.I'll leave it there and move on----

Don't worry about hijacking. It kind of died on its own. Everybody had an orgasm; now all they want is to take a nap. 

 

Mike you're a good guy and you mean well. Problem is that most people in power, overwhelmingly, USE religion rather than follow it. Religion has never stopped madmen from doing their thing. All the European dukes and lords of the middle ages were rabidly religious. It did not stop them from killing anyone in their way. NJ was far more religious in 1923 or 1924 when it banned concealed carry. Jesus or belief in Him did not stop those anti-constitutional scallawags. Look at all the Bible-thumpers who were caught blowing guys in public bathrooms.

 

By all means get all the comfort and inspiration you can from your religion. You'll be disappointed, however, if you expect others to live up to some ethical standard because of Christ or God or any other deity.

fwiw ive been getting a suprising number of pro 2a / pro ccw responses

I'll simply end it here and sorry for "hijacking" this thread. But do you mean to say if the NJ Judges and politicians were bound and accountable to the tenets in the Bible, NJ would [still] be a corrupt, No issue state? Sorry, these people have no convictions and no one to be accountable to with the exception of money and power and they are not accountable to you, only winning. The further we move from God the rights diminish---it's a fact and I guarantee NJ, CA, etc would be a different state if God was at the core to keep politicians in check and do the right thing---even when no one is looking. Do a search, most true, Pro-gun Judges and Politicians believe in God and his Word and with out that belief there is little to keep them in check and in line with God given or natural rights.So far, how's it working out with corrupt Judges and politicians? No too good!.I'll leave it there and move on----

No I was talking more about Devine intervention, striking down justifable need. The corrupt state lawyer's, politicians, and Judge's aren't going to. Regardless of their religious beliefs.

I have noticed that when the most vocal "anti" politicians in this state -- Weinberg, Fulop and others -- are confronted with the illogic of their position on carry they deflect, distort, evade, but will simply not give an honest answer to a very simple question:  If a person satisfies all of the requirements in the statute -- background checks, fingerprints, training, testing, references -- all of which are repeatedly demanded by gun control advocates, why can't anyone ever obtain a permit (other than retired cops and people who are politically connected). 

 

I recently had some back and forth with Senator Weinberg on this on Facebook and she agreed that permits shouldn't be subject to unreasonable delay, obviously disingenuously referring to permits to purchase.  But she simply won't answer the real question regarding a permit to possess.  I was at a panel discussion at Fairleigh Dickinson where Fulop, when asked the same question, sort of shrugged his shoulders and said "its a valid point of view but not one I share" with no real explanation.

 

The reason they won't answer honestly is that their position is so illogical and indefensible and contrary to their own demands (training, background checks, etc).  AND, I have found that most non-gun owners who aren't die hard antis believe that people can obtain carry permits and are quite surprised to learn that its impossible.  Friends of mine who are in favor of assault weapons bans, magazine limitations, and other restrictions have often agreed that people who have training, are tested, and undergo background checks should be able to have a carry permit.  They are even more shocked when they learn about the 7 year felony sentences that have been imposed for inadvertent violations.

 

So, bottom line, I really think a much larger segment of the population than we imagine would support removing the justifiable need standard if they were educated and cared.  Getting people educated could be addressed by a smart advertising campaign if funds were available.  Getting people to care enough to change their vote is the much bigger problem.

There are strong philisophical arguments for natural rights anyway. The problem with God given is that, unlike Muhammad, the founders (who were mostly deist) never claimed God told them anything, they assumed.

 

Anyway, remember that "carry permits" violate the constitution and our God given/natural rights anyway.

I have noticed that when the most vocal "anti" politicians in this state -- Weinberg, Fulop and others -- are confronted with the illogic of their position on carry they deflect, distort, evade, but will simply not give an honest answer to a very simple question:  If a person satisfies all of the requirements in the statute -- background checks, fingerprints, training, testing, references -- all of which are repeatedly demanded by gun control advocates, why can't anyone ever obtain a permit (other than retired cops and people who are politically connected). 

 

 

That's usually when they will start to mutter something about Jersey being "different," because it's such a densely populated state.  

That's usually when they will start to mutter something about Jersey being "different," because it's such a densely populated state.  

Meanwhile, in New Jersey...

 

"4 men, 1 teen charged in deadly Expressway shootout, cops say"  http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2016/08/4_men_1_teen_charged_in_deadly_expressway_shootout.html#incart_river_home

Meanwhile, in New Jersey...

 

"4 men, 1 teen charged in deadly Expressway shootout, cops say"  http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2016/08/4_men_1_teen_charged_in_deadly_expressway_shootout.html#incart_river_home

"Hicks was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose and certain persons not to possess a firearm."

 

------

 

How did a former felon come to possess a firearm?

That's usually when they will start to mutter something about Jersey being "different," because it's such a densely populated state.  

"13-year-old boy wounded in Trenton daylight shooting"  http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/08/13-year-old_boy_wounded_in_daylight_shooting.html#incart_river_home

That's usually when they will start to mutter something about Jersey being "different," because it's such a densely populated state.  

 

"Man is shot dead on Jersey City street, authorities confirm"  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/08/man_is_shot_dead_on_jersey_city_street_police_radi.html#incart_river_home

 

"The woman answered, "Honey you can't run away from this, it's everywhere." "

"Hicks was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose and certain persons not to possess a firearm."

 

------

 

How did a former felon come to possess a firearm?

He must have used that gun show loophole thingy! They will drop the gun charges and get him for a disorderly persons offense. They always make good plea

deals for the bad guys! Only the good guys who make one dumb mistake get the book thrown at them!

fwiw ive been getting a suprising number of pro 2a / pro ccw responses

From?

They've all been posted so far...

Response from a Trenton Democrat

 

NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

REED GUSCIORA

DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER

144 WEST STATE STREET

TRENTON, NJ 08608

(609)-292-0500

FAX: (609) 571-9647

EMAIL: [email protected]

COMMITTEES

CHAIRMAN,

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND INSURANCE

LABOR

GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL ON HIV/AIDS

 

August 31, 2016

 

Dear Mr. Xxx:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto of A3689, which clarifies the standard of “justifiable need” to obtain a “carry permit,” and S.816, to require “personalized handgun technology.” Unfortunately, the Governor’s conditional veto attempts to re-write the legislation and thereby expand his constitutional authority. Since this is clearly a violation of separation of powers, I urge the Governor to work with the legislature for a new bill rather than merely refashion language contained in the bills to attempt to effectuate a completely different outcome. This is ironic given the Governor’s criticism of the President for issuing Executive Orders when Congress fails to act on a given issue such as immigration.

 

While I recognize the right of persons to obtain firearms in conformity with the Constitution as well as current case law (ie., DC v. Heller), I believe New Jersey citizens favor rational gun control measures that lessen the likelihood of firearms getting into the wrong hands. In this regard, you may be interested in my bill A2605, which eliminates the presumption of non-incarceration for theft of a firearm.

 

Nonetheless, thank you again for writing me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto. Should you have any issues in the future please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Best,

Reed_Signature (6)

WRG/njg

Response from a Trenton Democrat

 

NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

REED GUSCIORA

DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER

144 WEST STATE STREET

TRENTON, NJ 08608

(609)-292-0500

FAX: (609) 571-9647

EMAIL: [email protected]

COMMITTEES

CHAIRMAN,

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND INSURANCE

LABOR

GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL ON HIV/AIDS

 

August 31, 2016

 

Dear Mr. Xxx:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto of A3689, which clarifies the standard of “justifiable need” to obtain a “carry permit,” and S.816, to require “personalized handgun technology.” Unfortunately, the Governor’s conditional veto attempts to re-write the legislation and thereby expand his constitutional authority. Since this is clearly a violation of separation of powers, I urge the Governor to work with the legislature for a new bill rather than merely refashion language contained in the bills to attempt to effectuate a completely different outcome. This is ironic given the Governor’s criticism of the President for issuing Executive Orders when Congress fails to act on a given issue such as immigration.

 

While I recognize the right of persons to obtain firearms in conformity with the Constitution as well as current case law (ie., DC v. Heller), I believe New Jersey citizens favor rational gun control measures that lessen the likelihood of firearms getting into the wrong hands. In this regard, you may be interested in my bill A2605, which eliminates the presumption of non-incarceration for theft of a firearm.

 

Nonetheless, thank you again for writing me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto. Should you have any issues in the future please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Best,

Reed_Signature (6)

WRG/njg

He's a piece of crap just like the other ones from this area...

^^^^^ Just got the same one. Shiester!

I'm not the best writer at times, especially when I'm pist, but this is what I sent him:

 

I’ve skimmed over your bill and if I understand it, it is another unnecessary bill. If criminals were prosecuted without plea deals and left in prison, we’d have less crime. But this still is no reason to limit citizens from protecting themselves. Especially since the bill is for after the fact. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Sorry to hear that you feel differently. As of this date, no NJ laws have prevented criminals from getting guns. Till today’s politicians understand this, there will never be less crime in NJ. The fact is, it affects legal gun owners, not criminals and I have not seen one instance where a criminal decided he/she bought a gun legally to commit a crime. Nor do they care about gun free zones, or where ever. You anti-gun politicians will continue to let innocent people be destroyed due to your draconian laws that affect only the good guys.

 

Maybe you ought to get a list of politicians that carry where we are not allowed to at all. In this case, you seem to think your lives are more important than ours and we are nothing to you. Good example, Steve Sweeny carries and there are many others. Yet, he feels that he will never allow carry in the state of NJ. How about all carrying politicians turn in their carry permits to be equal?

Maybe you should also pay attention to the facts from the FBI and other reputable sources that indicate that crime has gone down in states where there are legal carry.

Any politician that feels this way are nothing more than hypocrites. NJ is one of the worse states for self-protection, especially when the police have no obligation to protect us or get to us while a heinous crime is happening. We cannot carry stun guns, knives or anything. Restraining orders are worthless to those that really need protection. The order against an individual, could care less if they really wanted to hurt someone. I know… My wife was a victim.
OC Spray is not a viable defense. I use to certify people that needed to carry OC and I’ve watched people just lick it off like a spicy food topping.
For many years I’ve owned firearms and even carried on the job. I see no reason why properly vetted and trained citizens should not be allowed to carry if so need be. We have the fundamental right to protect ourselves, in and outside our homes. You are stopping the law abiding citizens from doing so. In closing, I only have to say: “The blood of the victims are on your hands”…

 

Regards,

 

John

Response from a Trenton Democrat

 

NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

REED GUSCIORA

DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER

144 WEST STATE STREET

TRENTON, NJ 08608

(609)-292-0500

FAX: (609) 571-9647

EMAIL: [email protected]

COMMITTEES

CHAIRMAN,

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND INSURANCE

LABOR

GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL ON HIV/AIDS

 

August 31, 2016

 

Dear Mr. Xxx:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto of A3689, which clarifies the standard of “justifiable need” to obtain a “carry permit,” and S.816, to require “personalized handgun technology.” Unfortunately, the Governor’s conditional veto attempts to re-write the legislation and thereby expand his constitutional authority. Since this is clearly a violation of separation of powers, I urge the Governor to work with the legislature for a new bill rather than merely refashion language contained in the bills to attempt to effectuate a completely different outcome. This is ironic given the Governor’s criticism of the President for issuing Executive Orders when Congress fails to act on a given issue such as immigration.

 

While I recognize the right of persons to obtain firearms in conformity with the Constitution as well as current case law (ie., DC v. Heller), I believe New Jersey citizens favor rational gun control measures that lessen the likelihood of firearms getting into the wrong hands. In this regard, you may be interested in my bill A2605, which eliminates the presumption of non-incarceration for theft of a firearm.

 

Nonetheless, thank you again for writing me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto. Should you have any issues in the future please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Best,

Reed_Signature (6)

WRG/njg

 

I was just coming in to post the same response.

Response from a Trenton Democrat

 

NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

REED GUSCIORA

DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER

144 WEST STATE STREET

TRENTON, NJ 08608

(609)-292-0500

FAX: (609) 571-9647

EMAIL: [email protected]

COMMITTEES

CHAIRMAN,

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND INSURANCE

LABOR

GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL ON HIV/AIDS

 

August 31, 2016

 

Dear Mr. Xxx:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto of A3689, which clarifies the standard of “justifiable need” to obtain a “carry permit,” and S.816, to require “personalized handgun technology.” Unfortunately, the Governor’s conditional veto attempts to re-write the legislation and thereby expand his constitutional authority. Since this is clearly a violation of separation of powers, I urge the Governor to work with the legislature for a new bill rather than merely refashion language contained in the bills to attempt to effectuate a completely different outcome. This is ironic given the Governor’s criticism of the President for issuing Executive Orders when Congress fails to act on a given issue such as immigration.

 

While I recognize the right of persons to obtain firearms in conformity with the Constitution as well as current case law (ie., DC v. Heller), I believe New Jersey citizens favor rational gun control measures that lessen the likelihood of firearms getting into the wrong hands. In this regard, you may be interested in my bill A2605, which eliminates the presumption of non-incarceration for theft of a firearm.

 

Nonetheless, thank you again for writing me regarding the Governor’s conditional veto. Should you have any issues in the future please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Best,

Reed_Signature (6)

WRG/njg

 

Scumbag---Believe's in Constitutional right then says it should be regulated. What a typical, BS progressive weasel answer. These people are responsible for division, racial strife and putting honest citizens in danger by disarming a basic right. Please get these morons removed....

I got the same letter. Here is my reply to this dickbag.

 

"With all due respect, your reply is more of the same lip service Democrats pay to law abiding NJ gun owners. The Governor’s action is necessary because Democrats in the legislature will not seriously discuss the Constitutional rights of citizens. If the Democratic leadership did not bend and break legislative rules and stifle opposition while it continues to impose more draconian gun control on law abiding citizens, obviously there WOULD be some conversation on compromise legislation. Instead you have attempted to codify this “Justifiable Need” debacle.

Restricting the right of law abiding citizens to concealed carry a weapon for their protection does not in any way lessen the chance of career criminals stealing firearms.

With regard to A2605, the only reason there IS “a presumption of non-incarceration for theft of a firearm” is because government, yourself included, decline to prosecute gun crime by repeat offenders. Gun charges are usually the first item to be bargained away in the plea process.

Your position does not represent the safety and well being of law abiding NJ citizens."

I would just quote Chicago Police Chief and dare these Dems to draft a bill calling for death penalty for any gang member committing murder.

I received the Gusciora one today as well, at least he responded and I wouldn’t have expected anything less from him. He’s your typical NJ Democrat politician with the Nanny state logic. Gusciora and Bonnie Watson Coleman have been A-hole buddies for years and you see the results (or aftermath) they have provided for Trenton. Bonnie as you may remember moved on in 2015 to become a US Representative and was the centerpiece of a recent NJ2AS undercover video.  For those keeping count I’m at 4 Yea and 1 Nay and that and a $1.20 might still get you a cup of coffee at the Wawa.

Bonnie as you may remember moved on in 2015 to become a US Representative and was the centerpiece of a recent NJ2AS undercover video.

Video of the year!!!

Put together 3 simple points, then call these fuckers. Tell their staff to find your email, read it, And discuss it with you. And now you want an answer to these three points you called with. Putting them to work is better than having them press a button to send you a boilerplate email.

 

Less than 5 minutes work.

 

Be polite, but do not let these people live in an echo chamber. Heck, you might even make a staffer curious.

Just got the same reply. I replied thanking him for sharing his opinion and that I would make sure that everyone I know would remember it come election day. What an Asshat...

That's usually when they will start to mutter something about Jersey being "different," because it's such a densely populated state.  

 

DYING AS I THOUGHT THE SAME - Have also heard this from dumb ding bat citizens as well, the same ones that say "well in Montana I understand but there is just too many people around" - which is also usually followed right afterwards by stories about how they are "scared" of guns because they might "accidentally go off"

 

 

While I recognize the right of persons to obtain firearms in conformity with the Constitution as well as current case law (ie., DC v. Heller), I believe New Jersey politicians favor rational gun control measures that lessen the likelihood of firearms getting into the wrong hands.

 

 

 

In bold I fixed it for your Trenton Democrat - and in bolt/italics I am actually surprised he looked in his thesaurus so he could use a different phrase than "common sense gun control" - again, very concerned about firearms getting into the "wrong hands" yet all the felons and gangbangers usually don't possess an FPID let alone would apply for a carry permit.

 

The way they speak Mr. Jo Schmo Crip himself is packin his gat with mad heat and "9 clips" in his belt but wants to flash that CCW if the POlice come to the scene of one of his crimes.

Put together 3 simple points, then call these fuckers. Tell their staff to find your email, read it, And discuss it with you. And now you want an answer to these three points you called with. Putting them to work is better than having them press a button to send you a boilerplate email.

 

Less than 5 minutes work.

 

Be polite, but do not let these people live in an echo chamber. Heck, you might even make a staffer curious.

From the looks of things about 8 people went through with this. No responses on friends' participation. I went zero-for. Got one real response and one form letter they send out to every crackpot who writes to them. I thought we could get 50,000 with a little effort. What's 50,000 divided by six thousand?

There is no place in Jersey that has a higher density of people within handgun range than places I can find in Montana or any of the 47 states. Handguns don't shoot across states. They shoot across rooms or streets at worst. Jersey doesn't have a single place with more people in a room or walking on streets than any of the 47 states that issue CCW and have no problems as a result.