USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment of the United States is not negotiable. The right to bear arms is not a privilege like a driver’s license; it is an inalienable right.
As such, it should not be infringed upon by any judge, panel, or group of politicians. The right to carry a concealed weapon is an extension of the Second Amendment and therefore is not negotiable.
Within ten day of being elected governor of the State of New Jersey, I intend to propose a number of changes to New Jersey’s firearms laws.
These changes will provide the citizens of our state a clear and constitutional pathway to purchase firearms and carry concealed weapons. One change will be very simple. When you get your permit to purchase, you will not need to get an additional permit to carry.
One permit, period!
Currently, a New Jersey citizen must demonstrate justifiable need in order to carry a concealed weapon. This requirement is unconstitutional and unlawful and places an undue burden of proof on private citizens.
In my view, we all possess justifiable need in these times of unchecked terrorism and rising crime. Each citizen should have the choice to defend him or herself in the event of a terrorist attack or violent crime. Trained law abiding citizens carrying their own concealed weapons can be another level of protection in the event of a terror attack or violent criminal act. As Governor, I will direct the State Attorney General to end all litigation regarding justifiable need.
I am not beholden to special interests, political operatives, or the establishment politicians. I represent you, the people of New Jersey, and pledge to always do what is best for us all. It will be my job as your Governor to ensure that any decisions made by our state government keep you and your family safe and further your ability to pursue the American dream.
Please visit my website at www.rogers4nj.com for information about my candidacy and the policies I am going to pursue after I am elected.
Follow me on Facebook or www.facebook.com/SRogersAmerica and on Twitter at LtStevenLRogers to keep up-to-date with new developments.
Kind regards,
Steven Rogers
B.Zerker:
We live and learn. My own hard hardheadedness or perhaps thickheadedness has, at one time or another, caused me some inconvenience. That said, i thought it was worthwhile then, still do. In-so-far as President Trump goes, it might be that he needs some encouragement from the people,concerning ridding us of some of Obama’s anti constitutional,anti civil rights executive orders. Some things require action from the congress, other things, the president can do by himself, though some encouragement from the countryside could always help.
No mention of NJSP use of secret ‘ no fly lists ‘ , prone to mistakes and with ZERO due process.
**** The ‘ Permits ‘ exist for CONFISCATION …… why else have them , they do not deter / reduce crime ?
Good luck NJ.
All lists of those types you mention (No fly/No buy) are “bills of attainder” and are therefore unconstitutional whether they’ve been enacted by the legislature or written by a bureaucrat. Furthermore, if a civil servant violates a person or group of people’s rights, rights that are “secured” by the U.S. Constitution, with an unconstitutional act, he/she has committed the federal felony of Deprivation Of Rights (Title 18, USC, Sec. 242) and if successfully prosecuted for this felony, is up for 1-10 in Leavenworth. Life to the death penalty if his/her actions cause the death or serious injury to a person.
B. Zerker:
Re your comment on Jury Nullification, and the possible result or aftereffect on a juror who so voted, their not being called upon again, perhaps. That said, Rome was built one stone at a time, and if more prospective jurors became aware of their potential power, and exercised same, there are more potentially rebelious jurors than there are “authorities”.
Alan: Well said sir! But, while there may be many “potentially rebellious jurors” out there, do they actually know what they’re rebelling against? This is why “constitutionalists” are needed on juries to explain to layman jurors why the majority of modern statutes and codes, etc. violate the supreme law. I’ve been told by both judges and prosecutors that as soon as someone is “outed” as a “Constitutionalist”, that person will most likely be dismissed from the jury pool and probably added to a list (a bill of attainder of sorts) never to be recalled. This is most likely because prosecutors… Read more »
How many prospective jurors peruse the internet and discussions thereof? I have seen, and contributed to several discussions of Jury Nullification at different sites. I would assume that others have too. As to the experience you mentioned, being a potential juror in California, and as you describe it, perhaps having been struck from possible jury service due to comments offered, wasn’t it Lincoln who offered that “people often sound smarter with their mouths closed that with their mouths open”? The quote is not exact, but the meaning remains clear I think. By the way, I would be the last to… Read more »
Back then, in my mid to late twenties, I was just looking for a way to avoid jury duty. A judge friend of my father’s told me how to do it. It worked probably too well and it wasn’t a lie. I’d had a very good civics teacher in the 11th grade who had interested me in the Constitution. That and my uncle, a cop, always told me: ‘To stay out of trouble with the law, you have to know the law.’ What better law to know that the law that every civil servant swears to uphold… and also how… Read more »
One of several things that simply isn’t going to happen. At least not likely in our lifetimes, though the end result of your expirement would be more than a little interesting to see.
Re the law concerning firearms and the possession and or carriage of same, who is it that determines whether or not a citizen’s “need” is valid. Currently, it appears to be some so-called “public servant”, with a vested interest in maintaining the power structure of “our thing”. The stink inherent in such a system permeates the air from coast to coast.
So mr. nichols hasn’t got a nickles worth of sense when it comes to the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment. Mostly the Right to keep (in any form) and bear (in any form) arms “shall NOT be infringed”. Concise. To the point. NO encroachments. No strings attached. Doesn’t matter whether it’s open carry or concealed. Upside down or inside out. No restrictions. Besides as Jefferson noted a long time ago (much later in 1823!) as valid today even more so. “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect… Read more »
Six years ago when my effort to overturn California’s Open Carry ban began I could not care less, one way or the other, about concealed carry other than to know from first hand experience that carrying a weapon concealed is useless for self-defense (close up encounter with a cougar on an Oregon mountain). But then I discovered that advocates for concealed carry actually brag about the “secret/tactical” advantage that concealed carry gives them. And then there were the morons who posted comments along the line of the word “bear” in the Second Amendment means they have the right to carry… Read more »
@CN have you Shepardized these cases they are very old? Were these the issues in the cases or is this verbiage just dict? Were these even the holdings in the cases or an out of context slice or a minority opinion?
Charles:
Re your comment on regulating one’s behavior, based on one person being visibly armed, compared to a situation where the other person isn’t visibly armed, though they might be armed, how about the following. BEhave toward others, zags you would like them to behave toward you.
Charles:
Excuse the typos. Hope my meaning didn’t get lost, it should not have so ended. Once upon a time, I typed pretty well, 65 WPM. Alas, that was a long time ago.
Six years ago when my effort to overturn California’s Open Carry ban began I could not care less, one way or the other, about concealed carry other than to know from first hand experience that carrying a weapon concealed is useless for self-defense (close up encounter with a cougar on an Oregon mountain). But then I discovered that advocates for concealed carry actually brag about the “secret/tactical” advantage that concealed carry gives them. And then there were the morons who posted comments along the line of the word “bear” in the Second Amendment means they have the right to carry… Read more »
So from your anecdotal experience, no form of concealed carry is appropriate because it didn’t work for you when you encountered a wild animal? Really? Can you hear yourself? Are you actually that ignorant? With idiots like you on the pro gun side we sure don’t need more enemies. Dont let the door hit ya, stay in California…
Robert Thomas – Your comment is why concealed carry should be banned everywhere, for everyone and why we rational people need to work on ways to keep morons like you from even owning a gun.
You are a turd and a troll, period. You views are your own twisted logic backed by no facts at all. The is zero evidence, zero, from any reputable source that crime increases where concealed carry is implemented. Further, there is some evidence that crime may actually decrease once concealed carry is allowed. Discounting that, if it doesn’t increase crime, and the people want it, where is the problem? Oh yeah, nanny state idiots like you aren’t capable of rational thought. Now don’t let the door hit ya, troll.
@Robert Thomas, He is more than a mere turd and troll. He is a slave maker. He can believe all that concealed carry is not part of our Second Amendment Civil Rights crap, but he can not conjure up a modifier for the word bear in the Second Amendment. He is just trying to convince people to voluntarily enslave themselves.
Poster lives in California: check. Poster lives up to stereotype: check.
A defensive weapon should be carried in such manner as to be most readily and immdiatdly at hand, given the possibility of encountering meat eating wildlife such as you experienced. For the more commonly encountered “social situations”, concealed carry could well make sense, as one might prefer not to upset the sensibilities of those members of the public who opt to go unarmed, their choice. The following is, by the way, my personal experience. Years ago, when doing some design work at a synthetic fibers plant near Hopewell, Va., I stopped for a bite of something, at a roadside diner.… Read more »
Should be; “the courts don’t” my bad!
@Patrick Sperry, We understood, and well said. And I agree that we should standup to the elitists where ever they try to enslave us. Elitist courts, jurists, and decisions be damned.
Anybody with a positive attitude toward the Second Amendment would be a plus for New Jersey. That said. After reading the commentary, and dialogue above..? Rights are exactly that, they are rights not privileges. No “permits, or licenses” are needed, or they are not truly rights. And no, you don’t need to be a Lawyer to properly understand that, and no, the courts dot always get it correctly. How to correct that? Get called to Jury duty, and after the Prosecutor orders you to find someone guilty, and if they are not? Give a not guilty verdict, and right in… Read more »
Correct Patrick, and the SCOTUS has ruled as such regarding liberties (rights) that are “secured” by the U.S. Constitution. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (319 US 105 [1943]) clearly dictates that states are prohibited from imposing a charge for one to freely exercise a right that is protected by constitutional mandate. This ruling also prohibits the state from converting such a right into a privilege and charging us in any way to freely exercise it. Furthermore, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, AL (373 US 262 [1962]) dictates that if the state does convert a constitutionally “secured” right into a privilege for which we are… Read more »
What I read, hear and see, is a great number of people, from all walks of life, including judge’s, law enforcement persons, politicians and just plain ordinary people, attempting to interpret the Second Amendment to their rationality! Let’s get real. Things were different when the second amendment was enacted. One thing is certain, today, each and everyone has an opinion they believe to be the correct interpretation of every Article and every Amendment of our Constitution. Since no person alive is capable of actually knowing what the founders thought, meant or said, except what is in writing, I stand by… Read more »
This man is the answer to our prayers.. Gett behind him
Don’t forget a governor needs a legislature that will support him. 220 years ago the pirates Tripoli would kidnap sailors and passengers on ships in the Mediterranean Sea and hold them for ransom. NJ and other northeast states arrest [kidnap] innocent travelers and hold them hostage until they pay enough money to be released. It has only been nine years since the HELLER case finally found that the right described in passing in the Dred Scott case really did exist. It has only been seven years since McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the States. The States have not been… Read more »
If you do that, them I may start driving thru your State again.
The people in New Jersey should be dancing in the streets! Oh would we the people in Taxachusetts love to have a man like Steve Rogers for a Gov. Hopefully he can set the wheels in motion for those poor bastards down in NJ!! Good riddance to that fat prick! I doubt if anybody will miss him.
Jeff,
We totally agree, especially when you say, Good riddance to the Fat P&*ck Crispy Creme. We are also glad President Trump did not fall for his hypocritical handling of BridgeGate and pushed him to the side.
Not to throw cold water on Steve Rogers proposal saying, “When you get your permit to purchase, you will not need an additional permit to carry” BUT, how about throwing in a little course in ‘live fire’ and oh yeah, maybe a little course on ‘how to handle the RESPONSIBILITIES of concealed carry…
Mke that Mother May I Card free to get….. the small change spent in the first background check for that card will be a small fraction of the massive amounts of money now spent on police going whack on examining what colour is my toilet roll and who is my ex mother in laws current boyfriend before deigning to grant me permission to OWN a Ruger 10/22. THen, add in all the time they spend making excuses, kvetching and moaining about how DAYNJRUS guns in the hands of everyday responsible citizens is, and so, no, YOU, with the exhusband making… Read more »
Mostly gil is another bottom feeding troll like bub g. Yep, that’s the way they both think. Quislings. An obvious perverted swipe at the 2nd Amendment. No comprehension of what it really means. Deliberate 5th column interference. Indeed, the tide has turned…. But as before, it’s going to be a LONG 8 years. So, dear gil GET used to it. And to Steven Rogers, can u explain the necessity of getting a teeny tiny itty bitty “permit” for exercising our civil Rights. Either it ACTUALLY is an inalienable right without ANY infringements or is is a permitted privilege. Like being… Read more »
Nice to see not all politicians are ass backwards.
The right to shoot others is sacrosanct.
You’re correct…Any CRIMINAL that attempts to do me or my family harm….WILL be shot…What a fool you are…You DO know, criminals follow NO LAWS…
Troll
Gil, shut your pie hole, azz hat.
as your “right” to spewl nonsense is sacrosanct.. in your own pea sized mind. You have NO CLUE, do you Gil?
I ask what other fundamental, enumerated right requires one to first obtain a government permission slip? But then again concealed carry is neither a Second Amendment right let alone an extension of the Second Amendment right.
Charles Nichols
President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/
https://www.youtube.com/user/CaliforniaRTC
https://twitter.com/CRTC_Nichols
@Chuck N, I can get by you talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time, but I can not get by your concealed carry is not an extension of the Second Amendment. Bear means carry. There are no limiting modifiers in the Second Amendment on the word bear.
Wild Bill – And yet every Federal court and every state court save one has said concealed carry was not a right with perhaps an exception for travelers while on a journey. So explain to the class why the Framers of the Second Amendment did not repeal the prohibition on the use of concealed weapons in 1791 when they had the chance and why the Framers of the 14th Amendment likewise did not repeal the prohibitions on the mere carriage of weapons concealed in 1868 when they had the chance?
I guessed wrongly… I read your first post as sarcasm….. the right to KEEP (own, possess, buy, sell, manufacture, hold,) and BEAR (carry about with one’s self, make appropriate use of) arms shall not be infringed. I don’t care a FIG what ANY court, federal or lower level, says about it… the above prevails. I know for a FACT, i my study of the Revolutioinary War period, that the concealed carry of handguns was common, and no one thought tucked inside one’s waistband or in a haversack or alrge cloak pocket was any different than holstered outside in plain view… Read more »
@Tionico, I think that CN is just doing that liberal/socialist/progressives lie thing. Say anything to get their way. As I recall Thos. Jefferson carried a little pistol concealed.
@Chuck, 1. The framers were all from different states. How could they repeal the acts of all the various states? I don’t think that they did have a chance. 2. Same thing with the people of the Reconstruction era. Too many different states. Where are you reading this from? 3. I can read plain English. I can see what is there, and what is not there. If you do not give me a citation, I will just presume that you are prevaricating .
Wild Bill – !) The former colonies at the time of ratification as well as the new Federal Common law based their self-defense laws on the 1603 Statute of Stabbing and its progeny. In 1791 it was not the carrying of weapons concealed which was the crime, it was the use of a concealed weapon which entailed the death penalty if one killed his opponent. 2) The Reconstruction era occurred after ratification of the 14th Amendment. It is the prohibitions on concealed carry at the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment which are relevant to the meaning of the… Read more »
@Chuck Nichols, Still no citation to you 1. No citation to your 2. Based on the political make up of the Heller and MacDonald courts, they did not consider concealed carry. And finally, DO YOU SEE ANY MODIFIERS TO THE WORD BEAR IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT?