Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
we might need a GoFundMe for a electron microscope to read it ..
NYPD warns cops about New Jersey firearms law
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
we might need a GoFundMe for a electron microscope to read it ..
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
if i'm not mistaken .. the #1 reason for 2A .. to toss out a asshole govt .. all the rest is #2 and #3 ect .. personal defense , hunting , recreational shooting . ect ..
and this could go with the small town way back in the day where the Towns people surrounded the COP Station .. damn I'm havin a brain fart on it .. @Willjr75
and this could go with the small town way back in the day where the Towns people surrounded the COP Station .. damn I'm havin a brain fart on it .. @Willjr75
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So 300 years from now after this country has a reset and a new Constitution, some corrupt clown is going to dissect this passage.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances.
Hmmm. Back then before the 2nd Constitution was written, guns were indeed infringed upon. Maybe when they wrote this, it only applied to people. Hmmm. What are people? Back then they only had organic people. Nowadays we have people with machine parts. They certainly didn't mean our cyborgs of today.
And what's that period mean at the end of the sentence. Let's see. How can we use that? Does it mean definite without change? Well back then people really didn't mean what they said. Could it be that?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances.
Hmmm. Back then before the 2nd Constitution was written, guns were indeed infringed upon. Maybe when they wrote this, it only applied to people. Hmmm. What are people? Back then they only had organic people. Nowadays we have people with machine parts. They certainly didn't mean our cyborgs of today.
And what's that period mean at the end of the sentence. Let's see. How can we use that? Does it mean definite without change? Well back then people really didn't mean what they said. Could it be that?
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
actually a parade permit can be required without closing a road.
Now, see we can debate where the limits are. Can a high school kid carry his SBR into the classroom? Or a 12 year old?
Now we say adults. Can someone carry openly and muzzle sweep everyone ?
Drug laws do work and see are starting to see what the relaxing of those laws are doing. Smoking weed in public was illegal but we are seeing more and more of it where people’s children are, movie theaters etc. Some laws are good and do dampen the problem. Want some shooting up heroin in front of you and your kids? If it’s legal, they will.
MS-13 don’t usually open carry those weapons for a reason... those carry laws even in open carry states or free states like utah.
Even constitutional carry states have some gun laws.
I start the new thread sometime soon.
As far as ignore lists, would rather debate with people who disagree with respectfully than I’ve in an echo chamber of ideas.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
That comma is the reason how Scilla convinced the others from the well regulated militia belief. Each word is important and each comma. The comma instead of the period or Separate sentence, made people separate entity rather than a part of the state.
Every word and comma was argued over when it was written.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i didn't have a SBR .. but carried my 12 gauge shotgun on the bus to school , dropped off at the shop class door .. and carried into school
.. it had a cracked stock .. made a new stock for it .. and took it home on the bus .. i was like in 9th grade at the time ..
i also made a 45 cal canon on the south bend lathe in metal shop, made the wheels from wood and then sand casted them and made them all metal
.. all i needed was a note from dad ..
made a guillotine in shop class for history class project .. and a mace weapon too all metal ..
if my Dad was still alive i would give you his phone number .. he took his life with a gun .. i heard it all happen on the scanner .. i even called in to
dispatch .. i have his guns now .. it was his choice at the time .. i do not blame the gun ..
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
This makes no sense. Who exactly will be enforcing these laws that the politicians ("they") make? The politicians? Enforcement of these laws begins at the LEO level. If LEO don't enforce then there is no way to get further along in the process (trial, conviction, jail etc). Now if you want to make an argument that anyone involved in enforcement after arrest can choose not to validate these laws then that would be valid. But that would be moot because again it all starts at the LEO level.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
You have to realize that LEO’s aren’t this monolith where everyone is the same , does the same job, or even have the same experiences or work conditions. Sort of like saying the military is the same but someone in the army and someone who served the navy have different experience as far as work conditions.
Even in the same organization, there are speciality units. Even if 99% of cops won’t do something, it only takes a few.
They will find these people and staff these units with them. Don’t believe me? Who do you think they staff internal affairs with. Do you think they give arrest powers to non LEOs( technically become LEOs but really aren’t ) to do code enforcement like the state tax department or a whole list in the CPL. ( go read it, it’s amazing who has limited arrest powers)
Also if the gun community disagrees with the interpretation of what the 2A means and to the extent laws can be made. It’s the same in the LEO community.
I use the parade permit example on freedom of assembly or slander laws on the freedom of the press. It’s where those laws can go is the disagreement.
A lot of LEOs will never make a “gun” arrest even if they are trying ( I mean those illegal guns from real criminals- not a go to a range and listen to the shots thing). I know a young NYPD detective who when he gets on his high horse at the bar that he made detective , we mention that- no armed robbery, or felon with a gun arrests. It brings him back to earth.
People comply with most laws out of fear of the consequences, not the actual enforcement.
That fear is what makes gun owners and law abiding citizens comply.
Again, how many “pure” SAFE arrests have their been in all the years of SAFE in the whole state. Not the ones that were illegal already before SAFE but pure safe arrests. I would guess less than 10 .
Again, do you think a company in another state is worried about a patrol officer or detective from NYS. But yet, they won’t ship above 10 round magazines here.
It’s not the normal local /state level LEO that they are worried about.
Have anyone actually looked up the consequences of walking into a post office armed? What is the actual penalty?
It’s not as big as some would think. When did you actually hear of someone arrested for it.
But we comply.
Last edited:
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Furthermore, just because an infringement is allowed, doesn't make it less of an infringement or even legitimate.
I personally do not consider 2A "policies" in NY to be valid with the current constitution, but that doesn't mean I'm any less compelled to obey illegitimate "policies" due to them being backed by force. It always comes back to that.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Many people get bamboozled when these Judges are tasked with finding ways to infinge on our rights. They buy into the whole wordsmithing these Judges put out to find hidden meanings that aren't there that'll serve their purposes into not allowing us to not have certain arms that can be used to dispose of the government or for the method to bear against undesirables or the government itself. Only an ignorant person can't see that it's in the government's best interest to limit these rights to hamper the abilities of the citizenry.
The founders without a doubt gave us the protections of the 2A to be able to dispose of the government and maintain a free state instead of an enslaved state. It even says so in the Declaration of Independence. In this day and age, in order to protect yourself against undesirables and the government itself is the ability to bear concealed. When you have an agent of the government at every street corner watching your every move either on camera or personally, how else are you supposed protect yourself or move unless the firearm is concealed? Whatever armed civil disobedience is organized by the people will be put down quickly if they can identify those by bearing openly. The rebellion is limited without that ability. It limits the ability to go from bearing concealed to bearing openly at the right time.
And as far as personal defense goes which is a part of maintaining a personal free state instead of an enslaved one or hindered one by an undesirable or criminal, bearing concealed is tactically the best method to do so. But the government wants to limit that right and take that tool away from you.
Whatever. People here and elsewhere aren't going to change their minds because...
1. They work or worked for the government and have been infringing on others for a very long time now and see it as normal.
2. They are just flat out ignorant and can't see the whole picture of what these limitations can do and ignorantly legitimize the wordsmithing that a judge has to do to find a way to restrict an amendment that had no written limitations to it like other amendments have.
3. Just don't want to lose an argument even though deep down they see some validity.
Whatever. Think what you want and keep allowing and giving credence to the government in hamstringing you when they play with words.
A well regulated Militia (abled bodied men that can rise up and take up arms), being necessary to the security of a free State ( a free state instead of an enslaved state) , the right of the people to keep (have) and bear (carry) Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say what arms or what method of bearing. If the right was limited, they would have added the clause "as prescribed by law" which actually puts limits on the amendment like they did to the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
It's written in plain English. Those amendments that have limitations, say so. They use words like "as prescribed by law", "reasonable", etc. It's crystal clear. There's no need for wordsmithing to try and ponder what they actually really meant. The amendments that are open-ended already have words and clauses to say so. If the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to be open-ended, they would have added the same clauses and words that other open amendments have. But because the Second Amendment has no words or clauses, corrupt judges have resorted to wordsmithing to limit it and ignorant people eat it up. It's all there.
If George Washington himself was reincarnated today and he took hold of the effort to dispose of the government like he did in his day, does anyone here think that he would be opposed to himself having a modern rifle that shoots fully-automatic and a concealed handgun for his own personal protection when out and about? Anyone who says yes that he would not be opposed to those restrictions on him is a flat-out liar.
Scalia was a clever man. He found a way to add limitations to an amendment that had none (unlike other amendments that clearly have deliberate written limitations in them) by wordsmithing and using conjecture to allow the government to not ever be disposed of and America ate it up like the fools that they are. Some even praise him.
The founders without a doubt gave us the protections of the 2A to be able to dispose of the government and maintain a free state instead of an enslaved state. It even says so in the Declaration of Independence. In this day and age, in order to protect yourself against undesirables and the government itself is the ability to bear concealed. When you have an agent of the government at every street corner watching your every move either on camera or personally, how else are you supposed protect yourself or move unless the firearm is concealed? Whatever armed civil disobedience is organized by the people will be put down quickly if they can identify those by bearing openly. The rebellion is limited without that ability. It limits the ability to go from bearing concealed to bearing openly at the right time.
And as far as personal defense goes which is a part of maintaining a personal free state instead of an enslaved one or hindered one by an undesirable or criminal, bearing concealed is tactically the best method to do so. But the government wants to limit that right and take that tool away from you.
Whatever. People here and elsewhere aren't going to change their minds because...
1. They work or worked for the government and have been infringing on others for a very long time now and see it as normal.
2. They are just flat out ignorant and can't see the whole picture of what these limitations can do and ignorantly legitimize the wordsmithing that a judge has to do to find a way to restrict an amendment that had no written limitations to it like other amendments have.
3. Just don't want to lose an argument even though deep down they see some validity.
Whatever. Think what you want and keep allowing and giving credence to the government in hamstringing you when they play with words.
A well regulated Militia (abled bodied men that can rise up and take up arms), being necessary to the security of a free State ( a free state instead of an enslaved state) , the right of the people to keep (have) and bear (carry) Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say what arms or what method of bearing. If the right was limited, they would have added the clause "as prescribed by law" which actually puts limits on the amendment like they did to the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
It's written in plain English. Those amendments that have limitations, say so. They use words like "as prescribed by law", "reasonable", etc. It's crystal clear. There's no need for wordsmithing to try and ponder what they actually really meant. The amendments that are open-ended already have words and clauses to say so. If the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to be open-ended, they would have added the same clauses and words that other open amendments have. But because the Second Amendment has no words or clauses, corrupt judges have resorted to wordsmithing to limit it and ignorant people eat it up. It's all there.
If George Washington himself was reincarnated today and he took hold of the effort to dispose of the government like he did in his day, does anyone here think that he would be opposed to himself having a modern rifle that shoots fully-automatic and a concealed handgun for his own personal protection when out and about? Anyone who says yes that he would not be opposed to those restrictions on him is a flat-out liar.
Scalia was a clever man. He found a way to add limitations to an amendment that had none (unlike other amendments that clearly have deliberate written limitations in them) by wordsmithing and using conjecture to allow the government to not ever be disposed of and America ate it up like the fools that they are. Some even praise him.
Last edited:
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Good story Will you should send it to any and all the lawyer's with 2A case around the Country! You figured it all out, who knew all their years in law school researching the text of the Constitution, Historical laws SCOTUS decisions and opinions (these two are different)
Here is the first one I'm sure could use your opinion!
GURA PLLC
Stephen P. Halbrook, Attorney at Law
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 403
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 352-7276
Fax: (703) 359-0938
Email: sphalbrook [at] gmail.com
Here is the first one I'm sure could use your opinion!
GURA PLLC
- contact@gurapllc.com
- 916 Prince Street, Suite 107
Alexandria, VA 22314 - 703.835.9085
Stephen P. Halbrook, Attorney at Law
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 403
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 352-7276
Fax: (703) 359-0938
Email: sphalbrook [at] gmail.com
Last edited:
96coal449
.308 Win
NYS had it even clearer ..... "cannot be infringed."
Then it was removed by current legislature. Is that an infringement?
ABSOLUTELY!
FUAC and anyone else that infringes upon constitutional law.
IDGAF about their unconstitutional ACTS.
Then it was removed by current legislature. Is that an infringement?
ABSOLUTELY!
FUAC and anyone else that infringes upon constitutional law.
IDGAF about their unconstitutional ACTS.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
It's still there but under Civil Rights Law
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-rights-law/#!tid=N2E484FBDF8174EAA9952CBEF14A9BA6D
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Remain. Ignorant. I don't care.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Not at all Willy! I have been getting more and more educated, As I keep researching this topic!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm out of this particular thread. Argue with yourself. Goodbye sir.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I’d like to see a NJ cop arrest another NJ cop for a so-called large capacity magazine.
ricklovin93
.40 S&W
"Shall not be infringed"
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Exactly.
My Glock 19 was, according to Glock, supposed to come with standard capacity 15-round magazines.
Just because NY legislators redefine standard as "high" does not make it so.
Toecutter
.308 Win
If you it look nypd has arrested out of state officers for carrying in the city as well.
I know alot of cops personally friends and family. I dont know one of them that's gonna check your mags. They think that the safe act is ridiculous but they cannot be vocal about thier views. Id rather them be silent then be vocal and lose thier jobs replaced by npcs.
The threat is not today most of us will live and die in a free ish country . they make laws most police will not LOOK to enforce them but if you do something stupid they may have to.
Generations moving forward will slip into servitude . People are sheep they want to be watched over and feel safe. The spirit of freedom has been lost in exchange to comfort and material things. We are slaves to debt and taxes no one will rock the boat becase they can lose everything.The best way to enslave people is to make them think they are free they will be more productive to their masters that way.
I know alot of cops personally friends and family. I dont know one of them that's gonna check your mags. They think that the safe act is ridiculous but they cannot be vocal about thier views. Id rather them be silent then be vocal and lose thier jobs replaced by npcs.
The threat is not today most of us will live and die in a free ish country . they make laws most police will not LOOK to enforce them but if you do something stupid they may have to.
Generations moving forward will slip into servitude . People are sheep they want to be watched over and feel safe. The spirit of freedom has been lost in exchange to comfort and material things. We are slaves to debt and taxes no one will rock the boat becase they can lose everything.The best way to enslave people is to make them think they are free they will be more productive to their masters that way.
Police Chiefs and Military Generals support gun control measures because, they believe they will be the only ones allowed to keep their guns.
This law shows the obvious flaws in that reasoning.
This law shows the obvious flaws in that reasoning.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
96coal449
.308 Win
Thank you, but I'm not reading the link. The title is enough for me.
To the NJ resident ...... fuckin idiot.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
For those shitting on Scala's efforts he took the collective right argument and stood it on its head. The argument activist judges where using to disarm everyone. Every state who has an issue with it has had to admit on record an individual right. They now clamor too reasonable restricts to disarm because they don't have anything else, their arguments are weekend significantly vs collective right. Just because progressive judges find disingenuous ways of getting around Heller, it doesn't make the decision any less relevant, The decision is slowly chipping away at pistol bans and it will be used to take out rifle bans.
My right to keep and bear arms suitable for Militia use is protected. I plan to download successful federal cases form fill my name and complaint. If every pissed off gun owner on this board filled and filed a separate complaint tying up the courts they would be forced to hear one of them just to free the system up.
My right to keep and bear arms suitable for Militia use is protected. I plan to download successful federal cases form fill my name and complaint. If every pissed off gun owner on this board filled and filed a separate complaint tying up the courts they would be forced to hear one of them just to free the system up.
Last edited:
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
You do realize that is says NO nj resident right? As in none have surrendered them?
96coal449
.308 Win
No I did not realize this. I've been quite busy as of late and read the post to quickly. Thank you for pointing this out for me.
My apologies to you @ArmedCorgi for not taking the time to rad your post more thoroughly. I'm quite happy to hear of no compliance.
thegatman
.308 Win
“All animals are created equal, except some are more equal than others”. Animal Farm - George Orwell
eris
.45 acp
Police officers being treated like ordinary people? This is an outrage!
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Oh, gawd. This them vs us thing again.
Go see how stupid the law was.
A retired cop could have 15 round magazines but an off duty cop, on call, could not.
It reminds when SAFE didn’t make exceptions for cops, including on duty cos when it came to schools. Some were exempt by the written permission by school officials , but in general, illegal.
But this cops should have doesn’t help and stop thinking it does.
Again, where were you when my NYC friends could only have 5 round magazines for their long guns? It was way before SAFE.
I didn’t hear this hypocrisy talk then.
Next you will say I shouldn’t be able to carry in NYC . Retired cops who have permits from outside the city can carry in the city.
Maybe you feel that NYC cops shouldn’t be allowed to carry in NJ to begin with. LEOSA is a great thing and You should have National CCW reciprocity. But to take joy in the loss of the ability to carry for others isn’t right. I feel for those in CA or others who lose their rights. Or the others states which seem to get closer to the BS in NY.
Go see how stupid the law was.
A retired cop could have 15 round magazines but an off duty cop, on call, could not.
It reminds when SAFE didn’t make exceptions for cops, including on duty cos when it came to schools. Some were exempt by the written permission by school officials , but in general, illegal.
But this cops should have doesn’t help and stop thinking it does.
Again, where were you when my NYC friends could only have 5 round magazines for their long guns? It was way before SAFE.
I didn’t hear this hypocrisy talk then.
Next you will say I shouldn’t be able to carry in NYC . Retired cops who have permits from outside the city can carry in the city.
Maybe you feel that NYC cops shouldn’t be allowed to carry in NJ to begin with. LEOSA is a great thing and You should have National CCW reciprocity. But to take joy in the loss of the ability to carry for others isn’t right. I feel for those in CA or others who lose their rights. Or the others states which seem to get closer to the BS in NY.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Just cuz New York City cops had problems it doesn't mean anything. Nobody thinks cops shouldn't be able to carry anything. They should be able to bear anything that the citizens can bear which is supposed to be everything.