|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Gun control can lead to genocide
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Current New Jersey rules for the issue of a firearm carry permit require the applicant to prove a justifiable need. Failing to do so is cause for denial.
If a law or regulation was passed requiring us to “show a need” to exercise other rights such as to speak freely, to worship as we please or to publish or broadcast our opinions, we would be besieging the Statehouse in Trenton for the redress of that grievance. Yet to exercise the right recognized in the Second Amendment we are required to prove a need. What is it about “shall not be infringed” the state fails to understand? |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/26/2015)
|
| It is a funding source for judges campaign funds. It is common knowledge that a $10,000 donation to a judges reelection fund will get you a concealed carry permit. Corrupt politics is firmly entrenched in NJ. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
