From the PR Newswire, United Business Media:
SAF, ANJRPC Will Appeal New Jersey Right-to-carry Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 13, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will appeal a federal judge's ruling Friday that "the Second Amendment does not include a general right to carry handguns outside the home."
Federal Judge William H. Walls, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a case filed by both organizations challenging New Jersey's handgun carry laws, which have all but eliminated the right to self-defense with a firearm outside the home.
"The Second Amendment Foundation and ANJRPC are prepared to take this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where SAF has already won a landmark case defending the rights of gun owners," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.
In upholding the New Jersey law, which effectively denies the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, Judge Walls wrote "the protection of citizens from potentially lethal force is compelling."....
It turns out the state of New Jersey sees it as a reasonable limitation that carry should be on the basis of need, a premise with which I heartily agree. There are individuals who have a legitimate need to carry; the rest of us do not, and we are more in need from protection FROM those who wish to carry without a genuine justification than we can expect protection BY them.
"denies the right to carry a firearm for self-defense "
ReplyDeleteSo, you think courts should be denying people their rights. Seems pretty damn un-American to me.
Nope, just reasonable limitation of your rights that balances our rights not to have to worry about whether or not you have sound judgment or not.
DeleteWe all have a right to be safe. That includes being safe FROM people with lethal weapons who have no legitimate business carrying a deadly weapon outside their home.
Or, another way to say it is that the court determined it is NOT a right.
DeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't have been given a carry license in New Jersey. You should be glad that you live in Minnesota. In New Jersey, no one is given a license, no matter how much need the person demonstrates. But we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say here. Of course, New Jersey is one of only a few states that do what you want. Forty states and more every year follow our side.
Yes, I would have qualified, easily.
DeleteThere is a whole series of rulings that appears to suggest that trend is changing, swinging the other direction - including the Supreme Court supporting decisions.
DeleteDog Gone, you don't pay attention. No one gets a license in New Jersey, regardless of qualifications. The same is true in Hawaii. Even though both states have a licensing provision, they never use it.
DeleteBut as I said, more and more states are joining my side. My Arkansas license lets me carry in forty states. I didn't want to go to New Jersey all that much anyway.
I pay attention just fine. You're wrong.
DeleteSo you say. Would you care to prove your assertion?
Delete"We all have a right to be safe."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can show me that 'right' in the Constitution. What you have is a right to defend yourself against any threat to your life (safety).
The Constitution is not he only source or declaration of rights.
DeleteThere is no right to defend yourself, except in your imagination. It is certainly not specified in any ratified document in the U.S.
The right of self defense is a basic human right, a right that is recognized in the laws of the states.
DeleteYou apparently thought that you had a right to armed self defense, since you had a carry license and a handgun at one point. So you're now a pacifist?
Dog gone finally stopped beating around the bush and said it: she believes that no has a right to defend themselves. That is sick.
DeleteThe way I see it is that you guys make the following mental leaps and then try to pretend it was intended this way in the BOR.
Delete1. the right to life
2. the right to self-defense
3. the right to own and carry a gun
MikeB what I have been showing across multiple posts is that there are multiple approaches to demonstrating the right to bear arms. We have the Second Amendment which is the most obvious and direct. Then we have a right to defend ourselves which is also obvious (except to Dog Gone) even though that right does not appear in the Consitution nor any of the Amendments. And then we can go the route of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that emphatically state that the People retain all other rights as well.
DeleteThe trouble is that gun-grabbers are missing the bigger picture. Gun rights are not the end prize for gun rights advocates. The end prize is freedom from tyranny:
we have a right to be free from tyranny. It doesn't matter whether tyranny comes at the hands of a single criminal, a gang, a foreign government, or our own government. The only way to guarantee freedom from tyranny is balance of power. Everything the Framers wrote was about balance of power. And the Framers knew that in spite of their best efforts to balance the powers of government, something could still go wrong and arms in the hands of citizens was the only way to insure a balance of power. That is the reason I have a right to keep and bear arms.
Your alternatives (pepper spray, stun guns, 911) are not effective. When someone engages you with force, your only alternatives are to submit or respond with force. I chose to respond with force. Because submitting to force is tyranny and I want no part of it.
Listen, CC, I believe you're sincere, but think about this. If gun ownership among the civilians is the answer to the threat of tyranny, wouldn't we end up like rural Nigeria or some other African cesspool? Everyone would be armed to the teeth, they'd band together based on common religions or cultural similarities. No one would be too much stronger than the other including the government.
DeleteThat's what you're talking about. That' the end result of too much unfettered gun rights.
Not sure if my response posted so I am trying again. I apologize if it appears twice.
DeleteMikeB,
What you describe in African nations is anarchy. I don't believe that will happen in the U.S. because we have two very strong elements of U.S. history, culture, and values that do not exist in Africa. First, we have a strong history and culture of patriotism for our nation. The citizens of the U.S. abhor any attack on our nation and would not stand for armed gangs running around committing criminal acts. Second, we have a strong history and culture of Judeo-Christian values which decry disorder, anarchy, and criminal behavior such as stealing, assault (including sexual assault), and murder.
When circumstances have required it, armed citizens have banned together to maintain basic law and order. The most recent, poignant example would be along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Regardless of whatever security that local police or National Guard units provided after the storm, in many instances groups of armed citizens were the real security -- even providing food, shelter, and places of rest for National Guardsmen.
And on a more personal level the people with whom I talk are on the same wavelength. Keeping and bearing arms isn't about some future opportunity to seize power, it is about maintaining liberty for individuals and our nation.
"There is no right to defend yourself, except in your imagination."
ReplyDeleteROTFLMAO!!!!!
You betcha, that's why 49 states have concealed carry, just in case we see a deer to shoot for dinner.
No, the reason all those states have that is because the gun lobby which represents a minority, is very powerful and influential.
DeleteMeh, this is the same way Heller and McDonald got to SCOTUS
ReplyDeleteNew Jersey is a backwards little state with retarded gun laws. It will probably take HR822 to help promote modern, common sense solutions to their increasing violent crime rate.
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “There are individuals who have a legitimate need to carry; the rest of us do not,…”
ReplyDeleteThen why did you get a permit? You even said you never saw your stalker as a legitimate threat, but rather she was just annoying you. Do you still have your permit?
Let me remind everyone about something. Our government does not grant any rights. Rather our government exists for the purposes stated in the Declaration of Independence -- namely to secure Natural Rights. The U.S. Constitution, along with some pre-ratification law and common law, are the defined rules within which everyone including government must operate so as not to interfere with each other's Natural Rights.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I want to remind people about two more important points. First, citizens do not give up any powers or rights regardless of what functions they delegate to government. Second, laws which indiscriminately violate citizen's rights are null and void and citizens are not obligated to follow such laws.
I have a right to walk along a public sidewalk as long as I don't assault people while walking on the sidewalk. If Congress passed a law tomorrow forbidding Asian people from walking on public sidewalks, it would be null and void. And I have a right to walk along a public sidewalk with a pistol in a holster on my side -- whether concealed or otherwise -- or a rifle slung over my back as long as I don't assault anyone. The fact that I happen to possess a firearm while walking along a public sidewalk does not interfere with anyone else's Natural Rights. Any laws which prohibit such activity are null and void.