I have been racking my brain to come up with a viable solution to this issue (2A encroachment), and other issues plaguing our way of life as Americans. That is why I am a member of this forum, because I am interested in the SF way of life, and from what I understand, problem solving is a big part of that way of life. As I see it, we have some enormous problems that need solving.

In regard to the highlighted portion of the article, I am having a difficult time understanding the phrase “cooler heads will prevail". From my view of outside looking in, voting and educating haven't done squat but allow the powers that be to further diminish our Constitutional rights by way of the death by a thousand cuts method to satisfy greed. So how do we, as a Nation, either regain our rights, or cease the actions being taken to whittle down those rights? Judging from the last two Presidential elections and other elections across the board, the vast majority of people in America don't give two pennies about what happens to the Nation as a whole, so long as it doesn't interfere with their TV reception. So how will you convince millions of sheeple to wake the hell up? I don't have the answers, and that is why I pose these questions. It just seems apparent that being the cooler head gets you pissed on to warm it back up.

Americans have short attention spans. You can give the best speech or show the best TV ads and two minutes later, after that trip to Wendy's, all is forgotten. I saw this country band together for the most part right after 9/11, and it stayed that way for a few years. Is that what it will take? Will it take another outside attack that destroys American lives and families for people to realize just how precious our liberty is? I certainly and sincerely hope that does not happen again, so what can we do? There are enough great minds on this board to come up with alternative solutions that we can maybe forward to elected officials and get real results instead of empty promises.

The letter in the original post of this thread is a great start, but outside of a few websites, I haven’t seen it mentioned by anyone it was directed to anywhere else. So now what? How can we get our elected officials to really listen? The dissent shown in Connecticut is also a great start, but those individuals who defied their leaders are now felons. Will America get up in arms when they start kicking in doors and dragging these newly minted criminals out to the patty wagon? I doubt it.

A compilation of ideas has led me to a solution, albeit it may get me arrested for thoughtcrime. Here goes the "what if...?". What if, we had a person or a handful of intelligent, charismatic, and articulate people who hold a "Million man march" rally of sorts in DC while Congress is in session? While having personnel in the crowd to self-police, we move the crowd to the U.S. Capitol. We then physically open the doors, and with a list of those seated who are blatantly opposed to the Constitution, start systematically offering the ultimatum of either "get out, or we'll throw you out".

With sufficient numbers, I believe this could be a solution without a shot being fired. We would keep those who have the core beliefs this Nation was built on to aid in the reconstruction of Congress, and hold emergency elections in each district not represented any longer to repopulate the empty seats. The voting tickets would have no party affiliations listed, just a limited number of candidates who have 48 hours to state their case via televised town hall style forums.

This would be an "action" that Americans would pay attention to, while simultaneously reverting back to the way business should be conducted according to the provisions outlined in the Constitution. It sounds crazy, but I'm just spitballing here to see what others think.

First of all, a person is not a felon unless tried by his peers and found guilty. There is no such thing as a expost facto felon or paper felon. Secondly, I can't agree with the idea of marches, letter writing, hearings, phone calls etc. It was already done and didn't work. The legislature and Governor of CT got their marching orders from DC. Gun Control is an agenda that does not include rational thinking. It is put in place for a reason and the reason is one of disarmament and disarmament alone. Do not be fooled. The line has been drawn and the actors will take their course. Not a rant just some thoughts on the subject.

Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.

I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?

I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............

"So at this point, what difference does it make".........

The propaganda campaign rolls on and gun owners and guns in general are being characterized as evil and the sheep eat this stuff like its candy. Connecticut politicians thought that everyone would just obey and that was a miscalculation based on arrogance and a thirst for power. There are plenty of keyboard warriors who talk tough until it is time to go to the fight. I saws them in line registering mags and rifles. Time will tell but I hope that all freedom loving individuals gun owners or not will band together for a common cause....Freedom. We live in precarious times.

I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....

Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.

Then can we put them on boats and planes to Europe and take away their f'in computers? :@-;&%:(*

I hope you're right.

I hope the Supreme Court supports the 2A on this one. The ONLY thing I miss that NJ has is their beaches.


Case to Watch: Drake v. Jerejian
by Allen Thompson, Esq.

By Allen Thompson, Esq.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to hear several important firearms rights cases this year, setting aside such issues as: whether a concealed carry permit-holder residing at a house creates an exigent circumstance in which police do not have to announce their presence, and whether a 10-round magazine, deemed protected by the Second Amendment, can be prohibited as a safety measure. However, one case is still standing and the Supreme Court is still receiving briefs on the merits.

Drake v. Jerejian, Docket No. 13-827 (which started out life as Drake v. Filko), challenges New Jersey’s impossibly restrictive carry permit requirements. In order to gain a carry permit in New Jersey, one must first demonstrate “justifiable need.” To many people’s surprise, one can only show “justifiable need” in one of two ways: a specific threat against the person, or a significant enough history to demonstrate that need. In addition, one must show that carrying a firearm is the only way to prevent harm from the attack. Once local law enforcement signs off on the permit, an applicant still needs approval from the New Jersey Superior Court. And, as Mr. Drake found out, even if the local law enforcement authorities grant the permit, the New Jersey State Police is still likely to appeal.

John Drake, Gregory Gallaher, Lenny Salerno, and Finley Fenton, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, filed suit challenging the essential ban on carrying in New Jersey. John Drake, who operates a business restocking and servicing ATM machines, necessarily carries large amounts of cash on him and desired to carry a firearm for protection. After initially being approved by the local law enforcement agency, the New Jersey State Police appealed and the Superior Court reversed the LEO’s approval. The current lawsuit was then filed and the denial was eventually upheld by the Third Circuit. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case currently sits, awaiting its fate.

To date, numerous heavy hitters have entered the arena as amici, or third-parties with some interest in the outcome of the case. The NRA, the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Cato Institute have all filed briefs in support of the challenge to New Jersey’s law. Nineteen states* also filed to support the challenge, as well as the Judicial Education Project. A single brief was filed on behalf of the following: Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Policy Analysis Center. Members of Congress submitted a brief, as well, urging clarification on firearms laws.

Respondents (those defending New Jersey’s law) had until March 14 to file a response. Although nothing has been posted on the docket as of yet, it is quite possible that, because March 14 was a Friday and Monday saw inclement weather in Washington, D.C., the docket simply does not reflect the submission yet. We will keep you posted as this case progresses.



*The following states joined Wyoming in filing the amicus brief in support of the Petitioners: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.


New post on Prince Law Offices, P.C.

The letter is in the news again
http://madworldnews.com/green-berets...ond-amendment/

This comment was interesting... How would you respond?

1. That decision is made by Congress, not the military itself.

2. Contrary to Washington's wishes, the US has a number of treaty commitments for the defense of allies around the world. As the militia is limited by the Constitution to repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections, and enforcing the laws of the union, those defense commitments must be met with the use of regular and volunteer forces.

Thanks for that link BS; a perusal of the comments also yielded a more diverse group that read it than I would have supposed.

A major influence in New Jersey is that the NJSP and other Police Agencies bellieve only they as LEOs have the authority and right to carry a firearm. They are so indoctrinated that any Citizen that owns a firearm is suspect.

The other angle on this is that if the ATM Technician needs protection, the NJSP believe he should hire an off duty Police Officer. Some towns have local laws specifying that you must hire an On Duty Police Officer, using their Office of Outside Employment or such thing. What a small business owner can do as part of his/ her business costs, now shoots through the roof. Many of these towns charge hundreds of dollars PER HOUR for services.

Shocking, NJ has a racket going. Take away citizens rights, so LE can make more money. Ridiculous