Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Petition to White House to rescind New Jersey gun laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66

    Petition to White House to rescind New Jersey gun laws

    Sign my petition to the Obama admin to order the immediate repeal of the illegal and unconstitutional gun laws in New Jersey: http://wh.gov/v5z

    -derhammer

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Were you absent the week they taught basic civics?

    The White House (the President) cannot rescind the laws of any state - unless he is bucking for the start of a civil war. The same goes for Congress. The Governor of the State of New Jersey cannot rescind the laws of the state, but could get impeached if he tried.

    Perhaps you would do better by directing your petition to the legislators of the State of New Jersey.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member xxx.jakk.xxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, United States
    Posts
    504
    Tenth Amendment
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    Even though they won't follow this to remove the federal restrictions, they'd most definitely use it for why they won't remove a state's restrictions. Also, it's pretty lame when one who argues to have the government follow the constitution and the rights it acknowledges but asks for the government to roll right over the constitution.
    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Psalms 23:4

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Benjamin Franklin

    “It’s always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there’s no bag limit.” Sen. Tim Sheldon (D)

    Molōn labe!

  4. #4
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    So the federal government is supposed to just let the states do whatever they want? The federal government is supposed to let the states implement illegal laws that violate the constitution? What if a state implemented a law repealing the fourth amendment, or ending the right to free speech? Should the federal government allow that? I thought the whole POINT of the federal gov't was to make sure all the states play fair - one of the criteria for that is to abide by the constitution. Yes, the states have the right to self-regulate, but not when they pass illegal laws.

    -derhammer

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Petitioning the Obama administration to get rid of gun control laws would like be petitioning Jeffrey Daumer to make vegetarianism mandatory...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    So the federal government is supposed to just let the states do whatever they want? The federal government is supposed to let the states implement illegal laws that violate the constitution? What if a state implemented a law repealing the fourth amendment, or ending the right to free speech? Should the federal government allow that? I thought the whole POINT of the federal gov't was to make sure all the states play fair - one of the criteria for that is to abide by the constitution. Yes, the states have the right to self-regulate, but not when they pass illegal laws.

    -derhammer
    Sigh...the Constitution was only ever intended to apply to the federal government. Even though most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the states (a Constitutionally-dubious proposition) by the Supreme Court, the president cannot legally repeal state laws he believes violate rights. Cases have to be brought in court to knock the laws out, most often, one by one, painfully slowly. Please read up on "federalism" and "separation of powers."
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-16-2012 at 11:28 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Petitioning the Obama administration to get rid of gun control laws would like be petitioning Jeffrey Daumer to make vegetarianism mandatory...
    True...

    Really, OP, I wouldn't begin to try, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's not in the feds' purview to stick their fingers in an area our Constitution says belongs to the States.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by United States Constitution
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
    This seems to me to imply no state has the right to enact a law in violation of the national constitution, therefore, I think the thought stands that the federal gov't has a responsibility to make sure the several states are respecting our rights as outlined in the national constitution's first ten amendments.

    I completely agree that this petition will accomplish exactly nothing substantial, but it's still worth showing that we are here and we want New Jersey to stop engaging in its criminal activities of rights suppression.

    -derhammer
    Last edited by derhammer; 05-17-2012 at 04:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    ....

    I completely agree that this petition will accomplish exactly nothing substantial, but it's still worth showing that we are here and we want ....

    -derhammer
    Sounds like hippie-speak to me.

    Most of us here got past the "accomplish exactly nothing substantial but it makes us feel good" stage a long time ago. We pick our battles, lay out plans based on the greatest probability of success, and go to war with little fanfare but great determination.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A republican form of government can is good. Just cuz NJ voters elected nitwits is not the feds problem....nor mine. NJ citizens can take care of themselves, if they choose to do so.

    Ya don't like NJ laws....don't go to NJ....or move out of NJ.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    The OP asked a really good question that still needs to be answered. If a state enacts a law in direct violation of the Constitution, why don't the feds step in? SCOTUS could look at laws that are reported. Have a screening process, as to not waste time with BS reports of laws, and then let the judges look at the suspect laws. The feds get involved in state issues all the time. Why not get involved in a real concern? Some have said the Constitution only applies to the feds. Your wrong, there are references to the fed gov in some sections and not in others. IMO that means unless it specifically says feds, it applies to everyone.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    The OP asked a really good question that still needs to be answered. If a state enacts a law in direct violation of the Constitution, why don't the feds step in? SCOTUS could look at laws that are reported. Have a screening process, as to not waste time with BS reports of laws, and then let the judges look at the suspect laws. The feds get involved in state issues all the time. Why not get involved in a real concern? Some have said the Constitution only applies to the feds. Your wrong, there are references to the fed gov in some sections and not in others. IMO that means unless it specifically says feds, it applies to everyone.
    No, the constitution only applies to the Feds, until you get to where SCOTUS has specifically said the 14th Amendment makes it apply to the States as well.

    I guess you missed those five minutes of civics class.

    And in case you missed the 30 seconds following that, SCOTUS has said (and they get to say it) that there can be restrictions on rights. And SCOTUS gets to be the decider of which restrictions on rights are constitutional.

    Basing you argument, or where you draw a line in the stand, on just the words wtitten in the Constitution without taking into account all the case law that has gone on since those words were written is worse than foolhardy - it will likely land you in jail without an effective appeal for you to claim.

    And as for why SCOTUS/the Feds don't just step in and tidy stuff up - - - No, that's really to long to explain here. Go look up "standing" and "jurisdiction". You need the first and SCOTUS does not get the latter until/unless you have exhausted all other levels of appeal. And even if they have jurisdiction they can (and do more often than not) decline to assume it for any of a number of reasons. They have all of this written down in their Rules, which are available on the intartubes.

    I do get weary of folks who do not take the time to learn both how and why our form of government works the way it does. While I may not always agree with what .gov does, I can only deal with what they do if I know both the how and the why that led to their doing it. Folks without this understanding not only waste time, energy and money but make it harder to challenge the .gov because of the crappy case law that gets added to the mix via rulings that the violations they alleg (and therefore some similar complaints in the future) are not actually violations.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    Some have said the Constitution only applies to the feds. Your wrong, there are references to the fed gov in some sections and not in others. IMO that means unless it specifically says feds, it applies to everyone.
    Well, you should march right up the SCOTUS steps and tell them that. Also be sure to mention where you studied constitutional law.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  14. #14
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    You can quote me court precedent and "this is how it is" all you want; the Constitution is very clear. Just because SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling does not make it right. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that if SCOTUS rules that rights can be restricted - infringed upon - then their ruling is unconstitutional, therefore, it is wrong. The Supremacy Clause, as I posted, clearly states that where state law contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution shall reign supreme. Therefore, New Jersey laws infringing our right to bear arms are, in fact, unconstitutional, no matter what SCOTUS or any other gov't org or court says.

    Just to be clear (because someone will try to sandbag me on this one if I don't put in this disclaimer) - I do comprehend that from a legal standpoint, SCOTUS may have ruled that rights can be violated and the Constitution is irrelevant (yes, if the states don't have to follow it, it means next to nothing - maybe the fed can't intrude on our rights to bear arms (not that they don't), but if all the states can act like their own separate countries, then the document is worthless) - but that does not mean their ruling was Constitutionally correct. I also don't understand the rudeness I'm being met with here. Already I've been accused of being ignorant (having missed lessons in Civics), and compared to a hippie. Is there really a need for the verbal aggression? Why can't we just disagree respectfully without the foolish ad hominems?

    -derhammer

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    You can quote me court precedent and "this is how it is" all you want; the Constitution is very clear. Just because SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling does not make it right. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that if SCOTUS rules that rights can be restricted - infringed upon - then their ruling is unconstitutional, therefore, it is wrong. The Supremacy Clause, as I posted, clearly states that where state law contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution shall reign supreme. Therefore, New Jersey laws infringing our right to bear arms are, in fact, unconstitutional, no matter what SCOTUS or any other gov't org or court says.

    Just to be clear (because someone will try to sandbag me on this one if I don't put in this disclaimer) - I do comprehend that from a legal standpoint, SCOTUS may have ruled that rights can be violated and the Constitution is irrelevant (yes, if the states don't have to follow it, it means next to nothing - maybe the fed can't intrude on our rights to bear arms (not that they don't), but if all the states can act like their own separate countries, then the document is worthless) - but that does not mean their ruling was Constitutionally correct. I also don't understand the rudeness I'm being met with here. Already I've been accused of being ignorant (having missed lessons in Civics), and compared to a hippie. Is there really a need for the verbal aggression? Why can't we just disagree respectfully without the foolish ad hominems?

    -derhammer
    Hmmm...let's see I can make this clear enough for you to understand:

    THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WERE ONLY EVER INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND DO NOT APPLY TO THE STATES EXCEPT IN THOSE SPECIFIC CASES IN WHICH SCOTUS SAYS THEY DO.

    Cases must be brought one by one. The president cannot revoke a Supreme Court decision, or "rescind" state laws you or he or the crazy bag lady down the street thinks are unconstitutional. To do so would be an unacceptable breach of separation of powers and federalism.

    By not understanding this after having it pointed out to you, you raise suspicion that you do not have a working knowledge of U.S. civics. It is not an ad hominem attack if the evidence suggests it...
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-18-2012 at 11:25 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    You can quote me court precedent and "this is how it is" all you want; the Constitution is very clear. Just because SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling does not make it right. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. ....
    Two comments: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ultimatefacepalm.png 
Views:	73 
Size:	54.9 KB 
ID:	8470 and Click image for larger version. 

Name:	beating_a_dead_horse.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	20.3 KB 
ID:	8471

    Have you read "Don Quixote"? I see great similarity between your assertions and the hero of that novel. But if thinking the way you do, and the resultant "tsuris" [go look it up, it's Yiddish] is making you feel good, far be it for me to stop you. All I ask is that you do not try to convince me that your vision is right.


    I also don't understand the rudeness I'm being met with here. Already I've been accused of being ignorant (having missed lessons in Civics), and compared to a hippie. Is there really a need for the verbal aggression? Why can't we just disagree respectfully without the foolish ad hominems?

    -derhammer
    I never accused you of missing the civics class. I inquired if you had. You have not yet answered the question. Similarly, I never accused you of being a hippie. I mentioned that what you wrote sounded like hippie-speak. While you seem to be upset you offer nothing to show why that comment would be erroneous. Both the question and the comment are available below if you need/want to check what was actually written.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    It's like asking an anti to use logic and reason - a good try but no cigar.

    Of course I'm always open to seeing someone actually learn something.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    Alright, there is really no point in continuing this thread. Just for the hell of it, I'll say, no, I did not miss civics class, and no, I am not a hippie (comparing my words with hippie-speak is close enough to comparing me with a hippie, and to deny that is just splitting hairs).

    As far as I'm concerned, it's fine with me if this thread were closed now and I'd be happy with that.

    -derhammer

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Talking

    Apparently, you missed the class when everyone else learned the president can't "rescind" state laws.

    But, really,
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  21. #21
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

    -derhammer

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

    -derhammer
    1. Sugar, it's the internet. The "treatment" you received was pretty tame, considering. This isn't kindergarten, and some don't play nice. You just gotta deal with it, and if you want respect and courtesy, extend it, regardless.

    2. Your intentions were commendable, and I think with a little education you could put that desire into more productive action. The key is to learn as much as you can before you start walking the plank. Carsontech provided you some very good information; I suggest you start there.

    3. You're still new here, so you have to understand that for some of the more regular members, it can be frustrating when newbs repeatedly pop up and spout off inaccurate information, and resist when any attempts at correction are made. We also get some antis and trolls, so new members are subject to some scrutiny until they've become familiar with the forum and its residents.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

    -derhammer
    No big deal; we all have a lot to learn.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  24. #24
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Hillsdale College course Constitution-101, Ten lectures online FREE, PDF text excerpt

    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 05-20-2012 at 05:02 PM.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

    -derhammer
    While I would not be upset to see this thread put to rest, I think there needs to be air-clearing before we turn off the lights.

    Eagerness and earnestness are great things, but .... And you all know when somebody says "X X X, but ..." that a hammer, or at least a shoe is going to drop. So here's the object being dropped -

    If you go around advocating for something that physically cannot happen, or encourages one arm of government to blatantly violate both the law, the philosophical foundations upon which our government and country were founded, and The Rule of Law (go look up what it means when it's given as a proper name) then not only will you be greeted negatively by the side you thought you were supporting, but by the oposition as well. In this case the antis will have a field day pointing their fingers and saying things like "Those bozos don't even know how government works. I guess we can use that to stick another control on them."

    On a personal note - you were given many chances to go look up/review/refresh you understanding of the federal executive branch and how in interacts with all three branches of State government. You declined those opportunities and demanded that we accept your point of view. That is very much like how the hippies operated - but saying so was actually an invitation for you to consider either citing facts (as opposed to emotions/feelings/wishes) in support of your position or reevaluating it. You declined the invitation.

    I triple double dirty dog dare you to show one example of anybody actually engaging in name-calling or insulting you.

    In closing I want you to know that I personally like and try to encourage enthusiasm and eagerness and earnestness such as yours. I also try to make sure that those traits do not end up feeding ammunition to the antis - and as much as you will most likely claim it was never your intention to do that, you did.

    I invite you to figure out a way of achieving change in NJ's gun laws that might actually have even the proverbial snowball's chance of being effective. As little as it might be, it still is some chance, as opposed to your previous effort.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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