Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2nd. Ammendment rights taken away from New Jersey

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    59
    Feedback Score
    0

    2nd. Ammendment rights taken away from New Jersey

    thread has been deleted for personnel reasons--thank-you
    Last edited by veteran-USMC; 03-29-20 at 12:26. Reason: deleted for personnel reasons with legal ongoings

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,062
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    First, a source link.

    Second, spelling/grammar. “A New Jersey Police credential” for media. Come on.
    AQ planned for years and sent their A team to carry out the attacks, and on Flight 93 they were thwarted by a pick-up team made up of United Frequent Fliers. Many people look at 9/11 and wonder how we can stop an enemy like that. I look at FL93 and wonder, "How can we lose?". -- FromMyColdDeadHand

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,516
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    New Jersey.... not surprising.

    Saw an ad recently for rough forgings for Springfield '03 receivers. You know, our pre-WWI service rifle, that holds five rounds in its non-detachable magazine. Rough forgings. Good luck completing that into a gun if you are not a master machinist capable of making the many special tools and cutters it would take,

    "Not for sale in New Jersey", it said. I investigated a little and found that the NJ Governor had declared that anyone selling incomplete receivers into NJ would be "gone after". Not sure how that's done without actual, you know, laws, but overlords like that are not concerned with legality.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Duarte, CA
    Posts
    938
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The Governor of CA passed the buck to the sheriffs to make the call as to if gun shops are essential or not, and as such some are demanding that they close their doors. I’m no lawyer or leagal beagle but I’d imagine those like the LA sheriff can get sued for violation of US code 1983 and I think that pierces qualifies immunity allowing them to be held personally liable for damages. I know there’s already a lawsuit pending against the LA Sheriff over this but I’m not sure if they’re going the 1983 route or not.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    124
    Feedback Score
    0
    Gone after? He means he'll tell his butt boy AG, Gurbir Grewal, known here a Gerbil Greaseball, to try to illegally intimidate the "offender".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •