Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2. Nothing in that ruling "struck down" the 2nd Amendment. Every state can impose restrictions, and it happens that NJ is one of the most restrictive states.
3. NJ residents should elect gun-friendly legislators. Indeed, the NJ legislature recently said they were NOT going to accept Gov. Christie's proposed expansion of gun licenses within the state. So there you go--someone elected those dolts.
I was unser the impression that conservatives championed state's rights. I guess they do, just not as it applies to guns.
If a state outlawed free speech and the feds did nothing then I would agree that is state's rights. But that would not be the case, the DOJ and the full weight of the federal government would come down on that state hard. The feds need to be consistent on every amendment to the Constitution. If they step in for free speech or any other Bill of Rights then they should do the same for states trampling the Constitution.
2. Nothing in that ruling "struck down" the 2nd Amendment. Every state can impose restrictions, and it happens that NJ is one of the most restrictive states.
3. NJ residents should elect gun-friendly legislators. Indeed, the NJ legislature recently said they were NOT going to accept Gov. Christie's proposed expansion of gun licenses within the state. So there you go--someone elected those dolts.
The valid interests of We The People of the United States supersedes any and all New Jersey laws that infringe upon the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment.
There are really only one or two valid reasons for having a fedgov.
To prevent the states from depriving citizens of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The second is for the protection of the country.
Notice how the gun grabbers ignore "Ruled Upon" law .. Even when the law is affirmed by a Radical/Leftist court?
Quote:
“If ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain for the 2-1 majority, quoting the Second Amendment.
“One cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the state is permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it.”
Actually, they aren't. Spray patterns are too dispersed after 20 feet and even carhart can stop 00 defense rounds. But that's ballistics... Nothing of importance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
