Jay Factor

@MorosKostas Everything in NJ is designed to hand out fines and permit denials for any anomaly in the paperwork.

Anyone know the reasoning for this? NJ already has a registry.

An outrageous authoritarian attack on gun owner privacy. I am going to turn an amicus brief I did on that topic into an article tomorrow.

@NRA Harmeet, 19 October 1774 Lord Dartmouth sent a Circular Letter to all the royal governors banning weapons, gunpowder, & ammunition “without a license from his Majesty or his privy Council.” The Mass men intercepted it and Paul Revere rode 66 miles to Portsmouth NH to tell John Langdon who in turn raid Fort William & Mary and took 16 cannon and 100 barrels of powder. Not one founder got the license (which is how the founders viewed the right.) Langdon ends up on the Committee of 11 that put together Art 1 S8 cls 15&16 in August of 1787. NJAG is the new Dartmouth.

What’s funny is these folks want all the gun records, but they don’t want to give the federal government voting records. Hmmm

Very interestingly the Police as we know them don’t exist until the last 1860’s. Most State Police won’t exist until the 1920’s. Interesting how they are called Troopers. In the eyes of the founders they would be considered a select militia. Which presents a Heller 2801/2802 problem for them in your scenario Moros. >”These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” RHL Federal Farmer 18. 1/25/1788

They don't want you to have "assault weapons," but exempt the police. Now they don't want you to have body armor, but, you guessed it, exempt the police. Gun control groups want it to be very easy for the government to kill you. That's obviously the opposite of what the founders intended.

When we talked about the Dartmouth Circular Letter, John Langdon, Fort William and Mary, and segwayed it into Article 1, Section 8, clause 16, on GunforHireRadio 448, the Circular Letter was a result of complaints of “no taxation without representation.” Oddly, in our scenario, we got our Circular Letter first.

I predict it very soon. We will have zero Republicans in the new redistricting map.

@AWRHawkins Dragons were used by Dragoons Same thing/same concept as modern stabilizer brace weapons.

Read the Second Amendment again this morning and saw the same thing Trump's DOJ saw--> No mention of a prohibition against pistol stabilizer braces. (But it does say, "Shall Not Be Infringed.")

Sporting purposes was a term designed by JFK bc he was a Senator in Mass and that was part the North East Corridor of major American Gun Mfg’s who were getting crushed by cheap foreign surplus weapons. Gets picked up in the Dodd Hearings and then by Franklin Zimring in Firearms and American Life Staff Report. @News2ATeam it was this Staff Report that was read by the Assignment Judges in December of 68 and March of 69 that created the Siccardi Rule. Go back and read Siccardi and Preis citation thereof. Zimring’s recommendation was not justifiable need for carry permits. It was justifiable need 2C:58-3a handgun permits and 2C:58-3b FID card purchases. “Sporting Purposes” is all a rehash of what Sills in 1966 and the Burton Court was trying to accomplish in 1968. Make self defense almost impossible.

"For example, ATF is studying right now to determine which rifles are generally recognized as ‘particularly suitable for sporting purposes.’” @DAGToddBlanche What does that mean, and why do a few individuals at the ATF get to make that determination instead of the American public?

@gunforhirerange @nickshirleyy “To the (fucking) core.”

New Jersey needs an intervention @nickshirleyy please add us to your list. While here I will feed you and let you shoot all 500 rental guns every day! That’s you and your staff included. All three branches and both parties in NJ are dirty to the core. We would love to see some reckoning to the status quo. Minnesota and California are minor league compared to our institutional corruption. @SaveJersey @iDenville @wakeupnj @Teacher_in_NJ @Oldglorycries

@elonmusk Hard to believe we made through 3 in 1981 with all those Nukes. Those crackers in the fall out shelters almost ran out. ☢️

😑

@gunforhirerange Exactly how we lost carry to the Siccardi Rule for 50 years. Not legislation. Not an EO. Not a Directive. Not in the APA. Just 22 men who though they knew more that everyone else and hid a memo in a file cabinet.

As Stalin said “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, it’s who counts the votes that matters”.

@ChristyMcDona16 @AriFleischer Lol wasn’t presuming. Just googled your shows and put a reply together. That said thanks for allowing me not to listen. We can agree on that.

@factorjay1 @AriFleischer Ok, don't listen. Also, kindly don't presume yourself superior for working a production job. We all work - while collar or blue. Lunch pail or otherwise - everyone works.

There was no reason for taxpayers to fund NPR in the first place. What’s next? Let the left fund their pet projects, not the taxpayers. Next up…Planned Parenthood.

That is such a poor reading of Miller. 23 August 1787 Rufus King explained that “arming” in Article 1 Section 8 clause 16meant uniform. (With the land Forces of Cl 14.) (This is what Miller was discussing at 178) Uniform meant same weapon, caliber, cartridge box, bayonet, firing system. Many of the other founders commented the dissimilarity of arms caused major problems “in the late War.” 5 Elliots Debates 440-451, 464-468. There were two allowable “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” classifications in Miller at 178. 1. ordinary military equipment or; 2. that its use could contribute to the common defense. 179’s “body of citizens (were) enrolled for military discipline (and) were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” In common use at the time was 1. ordinary military equipment. If a citizen could not afford that, he could show up with whatever he had, blunderbuss, 20 gauge fowling piece, Kentucky Long Rifle. But those were 2’s “could contribute to the common defense” weapons. The 11th has confused today’s version of the Blunderbuss & Kentucky along Rifle as in common use. Whereas clause 16 was specifically designed by the Committee of 11 to be (today) M16, M4, SAW. Not an opinion. Elliot’s proves its a historical fact.

The Eleventh Circuit ruled today that "machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment as weapons in common use for lawful purposes". You can read the opinion here: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…

@RepThomasMassie @RepTrentKelly Beg, take a test, supply references, wait, or pay a fee. “Constitutionally protected”means just that.

No one should have to beg the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right anywhere in the country. Thank you @RepTrentKelly for cosponsoring HR 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act.

@GIFFORDS_org What universal background checks & Red Flag Laws were the new States performing in 1791? Because if history is the bar, Lord Dartmouth issued a no weapons “without a license for his Majesty” law in 1774 and that was the direct cause of Lexington & Concord. Not one founder go the Dartmouth license.

No states should have any background chexks or red flag laws.

@News2ATeam @SenTimKaine @MarkWarner 1966 all over again. The difference this time around is Timothy Cunningham. Heller at 2791. “Arms are ‘any thing a man wears for his defence or takes into his hands.’”

| BREAKING NEWS | news2a.com/national/virgi… US Senators @SenTimKaine and @markwarner are trying to take the Virginia gun control blueprint national, with a newly introduced bill that replicates the state-level measures and even adds prohibitions for "hate crimes." The disarmament agenda is now on full display. @gunrights @VCDL_ORG @NickJFreitas @CamEdwards

In the post Heller/McDonald/Caetano/Bruen world some retroactivity is going to need to take place. “Control” is defined as “the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events” As a verb it means to “determine the behavior or supervise the running of.” They can make all the laws they want for criminals who “poses a clear threat of physical violence.” Rahimi at 1893. But the Bright-Line in Heller at 2822 is “not disqualified from the excercise of Second Amendment rights.” Once that has been met, through the BG check Bruen’s N9 seems to be allowing, (in our case with the FID card,) that is all the laws they are allowed to make. Dangerous and unusual is now a Conjunctive Test. Caetano. They can’t require more “control” on anything that is not unusual. Remember the PHS&W is “the police power” and it was unknown to the Founders.

53-pages of tyranny. We literally said yesterday, "gun control under the guise of public safety is disarmament." x.com/News2ATeam/sta…

This Old House. Lol. For those of us who work production jobs viz., making this New House, our splendid table is two saw horses with a sheet of 3/4 plywood on top and our culinary culture is lunch pail sandwiches while sitting on the lumber pile. Plumbers/electricians/HVAC would try to fight us if we put Francis Lamb on the Milwaukee 18v job-site radio. “Don’t tell me” what to listen to”?

@factorjay1 @AriFleischer Allow me to encourage you to do so. Excellent local, state and federal news coverage. Entertaining & interesting shows including "Wait, wait...", "The Splendid Table", and " This Old House" among many others are offered in my area.

The “Methodology” fact (and this goes back the 1664 Grant to Duke of York, the later 1600’s and the 1700’s,) is that armed citizens, viz., the militia comprised of citizens, were part of “the common defence” which is more than any “public health safety and welfare” “tradition” could ever be because the police power because it did not exist until the 1890’s.

Let's check in on the gun control mecca of #Chicago where this weekend's battlefield-level casualties include: 11 shot, 1 murdered. Just the way Democrats like it. And remember while @ChicagosMayor's personal security detail of approximately 150 officers costs around $22.5 million per year, law-abiding citizens are largely disarmed. msn.com/en-us/news/cri…

>”because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Bruen N9 FYI on training and 1791. Most States did not even have training and Live Fire Qualification for LE until after Tennessee v Garner 471 US 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 - Supreme Court, 1985. For the most part when training was implemented it was for LE only. NJ’s training in 2C:39-6j was for LE only in 1991. NJ just changed the law to civilian training CCARE in 2022. Would be interesting to do a deep dive into the Cali statutes, Register and Code to see when training for civilians actually began.

SB 948 doesn’t ban your Second Amendment rights. It makes you jump through more hoops to use them. Longer training. More cost. More delay. …still an infringement.

There was a reason Burton had to make it a collective right. There was a reason Burton glossed by the 14A argument. The public health, safety and welfare is the police power. The Police Power (as PHS&W) does not exist until Health Department v. Rector, etc. of Trinity Church (1895). There is no such thing in Blackstone. It was unheard of by the founders viz., 1791. The police power can not supersede the Constitution. Cruikshank at 553 citing NY v Milm (1837). Even Miln knew “the validity of (State law) depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to an act of congress passed in pursuance of the constitution.” At 137 (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 - Supreme Court (1824) at 209.) All of these public safety laws rest on that PHS&W/police power but (like the NJ GCL of 1966) none of them ever had to authority to contravene a right guaranteed by the constitution. see Heller at 2809 (citing Nunn). >”No rule prescribed by the State … to safeguard the PH&S … shall contravene the Constitution or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.” [Jacobson v Mass 197 US 11 Supreme (1905) at 25.] The States have no idea that McDonald is retro active and all of the legal precedent sits on a foundation of sand.

Gun control under the guise of public safety is disarmament. Let's recognize the propaganda for what it is.

“Any of the people”? There were 8 guys in his house. If he plays it differently and gets beat up 8 on 1 he very likely had serious bodily injury or if he gets overwhelmed and slammed head first on concrete floor, dies. >”The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.” Heller at 2787. The police power can not supersede a constitutional right. Cruikshank at 553 citing Miln. The police power was unknown by the founders in 1791. Does not exist in Blackstone. And does not show up until NY Trinity Church case in the very late 1800’s. Which means at the time of the founding, the core lawful purpose of self-defence included defense of property. No matter what kind of anti-property laws the States made after the Bill of Rights was ratified. IMHO. Not a lawyer. Just a historical reader.

As a Criminal Defense Attorney… hell, as a citizen of this country - this ruling is very troubling. Your property - even detached buildings - is as much a part of your home as your own bedroom. Lethal force should always apply to defense of your home.