-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun Affirmed
- Thread starter taz-2005
- Start date
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Don't ever take anything I say as excusing Bush's ****-ups. Seriously.
More impeachments would certainly help...
...Or there's that.
GJH86
NES Member
What's next? Charging people if the non majority party a fee to vote? Special permits to hold a certain belief? Shame on you NJ for letting it get that far. The need or justification fir the exercising of any constitutional right? I am a citizen and I am breathing.
There is even more BS behind this. If I am not mistaken, two of the plaintiffs in the suit were forced to be removed from it. One because he can now carry under LEOSA, and the other because they finally gave him a permit...just so he wouldn't be on the suit.
"Daniel Piszczatoski of Wayne, a civilian employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a plaintiff in the suit. He alleges that he applied for a permit after he was notified by the FBI last year that Islamic fundamentalist groups were planned criminal attacks against FBI employees. “The FBI warned that the group might follow employees home from work and attempt to kidnap or kill the employees or their family members,” the lawsuit reads. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Piszczatoski was dismayed to learn that an internet search for his name revealed both his home address and the fact that he was employed by the FBI. Piszczatoski states in the suit that he received approval from the Wayne police chief when he applied for the permit, but that Passaic County Superior Court Judge Rudolph Filko denied the request.
Mr. Piszczatoski is a civilian employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation residing in Wayne, New Jersey. Mr. Piszczatoski serves as the program coordinator for the New York imaging services unit. Mr. Piszczatoski is also a warrant officer with the United States Coast Guard. In his capacity as a warrant officer, Mr. Piszczatoski has the statutory power of arrest."
He retired from the USCG and LEOSA now applies. So he can now carry as a retired LEO but when he was an actual LEO in the CG, and a member of the FBI in which the FBI verified a threat, AND the police chief approved, he was still unable to carry. Sad.
I think the other guy who finally years later got a permit had been kidnapped twice. But that wasn't good enough either.
"Daniel Piszczatoski of Wayne, a civilian employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a plaintiff in the suit. He alleges that he applied for a permit after he was notified by the FBI last year that Islamic fundamentalist groups were planned criminal attacks against FBI employees. “The FBI warned that the group might follow employees home from work and attempt to kidnap or kill the employees or their family members,” the lawsuit reads. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Piszczatoski was dismayed to learn that an internet search for his name revealed both his home address and the fact that he was employed by the FBI. Piszczatoski states in the suit that he received approval from the Wayne police chief when he applied for the permit, but that Passaic County Superior Court Judge Rudolph Filko denied the request.
Mr. Piszczatoski is a civilian employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation residing in Wayne, New Jersey. Mr. Piszczatoski serves as the program coordinator for the New York imaging services unit. Mr. Piszczatoski is also a warrant officer with the United States Coast Guard. In his capacity as a warrant officer, Mr. Piszczatoski has the statutory power of arrest."
He retired from the USCG and LEOSA now applies. So he can now carry as a retired LEO but when he was an actual LEO in the CG, and a member of the FBI in which the FBI verified a threat, AND the police chief approved, he was still unable to carry. Sad.
I think the other guy who finally years later got a permit had been kidnapped twice. But that wasn't good enough either.
My comment would be: I suggest you re-read Heller in its entirety. The court notes that there is an authority to regulate other than the meaning of "well regulated"; "“Among the other defenses to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms… . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” Id., at 350."
Regulation, in this case, means that it is not a right, but rather a privilege by which the legislature may limit your ability to own a firearm, by type, or even license.
However, the 2nd Amendment imposes unrestricted duty on the People to be well-armed in the manner of military fighting unit.
There is a huge difference between what most think Heller determined and what was actually said by the court.
Scalia has since noted that the Constitution does allow for the regulation of firearms.
Regulation, in this case, means that it is not a right, but rather a privilege by which the legislature may limit your ability to own a firearm, by type, or even license.
However, the 2nd Amendment imposes unrestricted duty on the People to be well-armed in the manner of military fighting unit.
There is a huge difference between what most think Heller determined and what was actually said by the court.
Scalia has since noted that the Constitution does allow for the regulation of firearms.
My comment would be: I suggest you re-read Heller in its entirety. The court notes that there is an authority to regulate other than the meaning of "well regulated"; "“Among the other defenses to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms… . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” Id., at 350."
Regulation, in this case, means that it is not a right, but rather a privilege by which the legislature may limit your ability to own a firearm, by type, or even license.
However, the 2nd Amendment imposes unrestricted duty on the People to be well-armed in the manner of military fighting unit.
There is a huge difference between what most think Heller determined and what was actually said by the court.
Scalia has since noted that the Constitution does allow for the regulation of firearms.
So with that said the only way around this crap is for every state to have an organized "militia"! And that guarantees you the ability to carry outside the home.
The NRA refuses to argue this point when they take these cases before the courts.
Regulation, in this case, means that it is not a right, but rather a privilege by which the legislature may limit your ability to own a firearm, by type, or even license.
However, the 2nd Amendment imposes unrestricted duty on the People to be well-armed in the manner of military fighting unit.
There is a huge difference between what most think Heller determined and what was actually said by the court.
Scalia has since noted that the Constitution does allow for the regulation of firearms.
So with that said the only way around this crap is for every state to have an organized "militia"! And that guarantees you the ability to carry outside the home.
The NRA refuses to argue this point when they take these cases before the courts.
falcon123
NES Member
Didnt King George also plant his lackeys in the colonies to do his bidding? We all know what had to be done to stop the injustice. At the reate we're going, history will repeat itself so keep your powder dry.
- - - Updated - - -
He lost a lot of votes by doing that. Stop listening to your "advisors" and do what's right.
