Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsSays bill would violate New Jersey's gun control laws
Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) announced Friday she has introduced a legislative resolution condemning the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,” saying that the federal proposal would undermine New Jersey’s gun control laws and states’ traditional role in deciding the best gun control strategies for each individual state.
“Historically, states have been given the right of self-determination when it comes to gun control,” Weinberg said. “Regardless of how you feel about New Jersey’s gun control laws, the federal legislation which was recently passed by the House would set a terrible precedent, and opens the door for Second Amendment activists elsewhere in the country to override New Jersey’s own laws. Hopefully, Governor Christie and our Congressional leaders will stand up for our state and oppose this overreaching federal bill.”
The resolution (SR-132), would express the state Senate’s opposition to the federal bill (H.R. 822). The proposal, which was approved by a vote of 272-154 on Nov. 16, would allow individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state the ability to carry a concealed weapon in every other state that allows people to carry concealed weapons, without having to reapply for a permit in each state. The result would be that individuals with a permit to carry from a more lax gun control state would have unchecked ability to carry a concealed weapon in N.J., where they may not even qualify for a permit. The federal bill is not expected to pass the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Currently, only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals from carrying a concealed weapon.
Weinberg noted that only seven Republicans voted against the legislation in the House – where it had large support from the National Rifle Association – despite the fact that Republicans tend to favor states’ rights over federal regulation.
“I find it a bit ironic that the move to trample states’ rights to regulate firearms is coming from Republicans who are all too eager to demand states’ rights on such things as health care, abortion and defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” Weinberg said. “While our Constitution guarantees people a right to bear arms, the decision was made to allow states to regulate guns, in order to allow them to develop strategies that meet the individual states’ demographic, economic and lifestyle needs. What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.”
If approved by the Legislature, copies of the resolution would be sent to leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
—TOM HESTER SR., NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ( New Jersey's Constitution )
1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. So if this is true, New Jersey's Constitution, this means that my Second Amendment RIGHT, under the Constitution of the United States, which is a unalienable right, should not be a problem in New Jersey, so then exactly what is the problem?
State Rights? hmm..
the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So according to New Jersey's Representatives WE THE PEOPLE of New Jersey do NOT have that right which is stipulated in N.J.'s Constitution of "DEFENDING our Life and our Liberties" and N.J.'s Representatives apparently do not believe in OUR 2nd Amendment RIGHT under the Constitution of the United States, Oh, you say our founding fathers did not mean for us to have Firearms for our Defense, I guess the following quotes from the writings of our founding fathers concerning the 2nd amendment, does not mean anything at all, such as, and this is just a few:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
So Senator, you did take an Oath of Office did you not? So your against the Oath of Office you took? Do you even remember the Oath? Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
How about you take it again and read it real slow, so you may be able to understand exactly what it states and means. If you do not understand or, as you are currently doing, not living up to said Oath, you ought to find another occupation, being a U.S. Senator does not suit you.
Finally, Laws are written and affect ONLY the Law Abiding Citizen, It does not affect those that do not obey or
care one bit about the Law. Take a look at these other States that have "the RIGHT to Carry" Crime dropped, but New Jersey welcomes the Criminals Here.
Respectfully Submitted,
Arthur J Barton Jr
Mantua, N.J.
A United States Citizen of the State of New Jersey.
“I find it a bit ironic that the move to trample states’ rights to regulate firearms is coming from Republicans who are all too eager to demand states’ rights on such things as health care, abortion and defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” Weinberg said. “While our Constitution guarantees people a right to bear arms, the decision was made to allow states to regulate guns, in order to allow them to develop strategies that meet the individual states’ demographic, economic and lifestyle needs. What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.”
I disagree with H.R. 822 because I DON'T NEED GOVERNMENTAL "PERMISSION" TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONALLY AFFIRMED RIGHT. The only (and last, I might add) time I was in Jersey was when a missed my exit in Philadelphia and crossed into Camden. By doing so, under New Jersey law(s) I committed at least 53 FELONIES by exeecising a Constitutionally affirmed, basic human civil RIGHT. Thankfully I escaped without detection.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a retired member of the U. S. Air Force (fully qualified Security Policeman), firearms instructor, former law enforcement officer, with Top Secret AND Nuclear Surety clearances (used to work on the bombing system on nuclear-loaded B-52's). Not to brag, but I'm the kind of guy YOU WANT to carry a gun 24/7.
One further point: do you not remember your OATH OF OFFICE?
She is an inspiration to people that have no hope of advancing above a minimum wage entry level job. Just think, these people now can aspire to be politicians that are highly paid, with overly generous benefits.
The article mentions that DC and Chicago don't have any provision for concealed carry by citizens. In 2010 DC had twenty seven times more murders that the larger city of El Paso, TX. Chicago's murder rate was nineteen times higher. Ms. Weinberg cannot explain why this is nor will she try. She would rather her neighbors be murdered than have the opportunity to defend themselves. Harsh? Yes, but true. This is today's Democrat party. Tax, spend, restrict people, ration medicine, and pass gun laws that affect the citizen and not the criminal.
Look at Califonia. According to the Brady Campaign they have the most gun laws of any state. So far this year California has passed three more. One against the open carry of an unloaded handgun. Wow, that really will cut down on crime. California has the most gun laws but their murder rate is over 400% higher than the state with the fewest gun restrictions.
HR822 only affects states that trample on their citizens. Long live freedom!
Don't believe this sentence. A similar bill was barely defeated in 2009 and the Senate might attach their version of the bill to a must pass defense department bill.
Keep the faith.
I have an idea how about we pass a law that all Politicians received the same protection that the majority of us citizen receive. Meaning impossible Conceal Carry Permits, same police response times, & for those that have personal security.. say bye bye. I wonder how they would feel when they walked into work that they didn't have state police protection but a $10/hr security officer that is like 80 years old. Walking to their car in the state capital. It saves us money and puts more cops on the street.
The louder the statists scream, the better I like it.
I find it a bit ironic that a Democrat would have the nerve to spew such balloon juice in light of her unwavering support of Obama-scare. All of a sudden the democrats are worried about states' rights? HA! LOL at ALL libs.
Bastids
While it would be great to be able to go to New Jersey (or MA, or CA, or NY) without giving up my Second Amendment rights, I think the true value is that law abiding citizens in these states will be able to realize that being in the same train (or car, or restaurant) isn't an issue.
After realizing the folks who (legally) carry concealed the aren't the monsters, lunatics and crazies that their local pols have made them out to be, they will be a lot more inclined to ask why they can't be licensed to carry in their own state.
My younger brother on the other hand, who is on the fast track to becoming a career criminal carries an illegal firearm in New Jersey, yet this politician is concerned about setting a bad precedent by allowing someone like me to career in New Jersey in accordance with the law? Really?