Jay Factor

Lifter of Heavy Weight-Fisherman-NJ RKBA Historian-RFH & Mount Union & Salve Regina Football Fan

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

Spent countless hours on that. Was there a deal involved to get another Justice? Clearly the machine gun and longstanding law portion of Heller was. But here we got plain text and 1791.
The 1966 FID Card is unconstitutional under that. The 1924 (concealed only) carry permit and the 1966 (all) carry change is unconstitutional under that.
Whatever the answer is there is a silver lining for NJ. Heller 2822 laid out the disqualified test for keep and carry. And gave us Cunningham. Bruen explained the right covers both keep and bear and that bear means carry.
Meaning regardless of how N9 plays out, NJ can have only one. The P2P is dead. (Cunningham) They can keep the FID or the -4 but either performs the tasks of both. Don’t think FID-think “not disqualified” card. NICS is gone bc they are making us pay for Indentogo and 2C:58-3f already has the revocation feature. As infringe means limit, FID goes back to lifetime and there is no more 2 year fee or CCARE.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

“But in a country, where the perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it, her armies must be numerous enough for instant defence. The continual necessity for his services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees, the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors.” Hamilton Federalist 8. #theirony

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

“Today if course” LOL same crap NJ Supreme Court used in 1966 in Burton v Sills when it claimed that the National Guard was the militia of the Second Amendment.

>”As the language of the amendment itself indicates it was not framed with individual rights in mind. Thus it refers to the collective right "of the people" to keep and bear arms in connection with "a well-regulated militia." Most students of the subject would undoubtedly express agreement with the substance of the currently expressed view that "the term `well-regulated militia' must be taken to mean the active, organized militia of each state, which today is characterized as the state National Guard." Feller and Gotting, supra, 61 Nw. U.L. Rev., at 64; see N.J.S.38A:1-2, 3.” Burton at 97

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

Completely aside from the fact that the founders were smuggling their guns and gun powder from the Caribbean, they were also bypassing the Molasses Act and smuggling Rum from St Domingue to get cheaper French Molasses. The colonies had 140 rum distilleries at 4.8m gallons a year and imported another (illegal) 3.8m gallons. The Americans were also paying the militia a portion of their militia pay in Rum. If the Heller Methodology is truly about history, alcohol should have no weight when it comes to Second Amendment rights. And that goes for sensitive places as well, as the men on Lexington Green came out of Buckman Tavern.

[News2A @News2ATeam]

Gun control groups like @Everytown @GIFFORDS_org and @MomsDemand are not organic, grassroots organizations.

They are not primarily concerned with public safety and welfare.

They are funded through dark money channels by billionaire activists and globalist NGOs that have one agenda:

Disarmament.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

The funny part is NJ completed ignored N9’s “exorbitant fees” and raised their fee from $20 to $200 (plus $26 SBI212a) and even though N9 said BG check OR safety course, then added +/- $200 CCARE and their own 12/22/2022 statute had the bravado to claim Bruen gave them the authority to do it (citing Kavanaugh concurrence in the later)

>”The Bruen decision does make clear, however, that the Legislature can enact laws to protect our communities from threats to public health, safety, and welfare posed by gun violence, which take into account as appropriate the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling while continuing to promote and enhance public safety.” 2C:58-4.2b

***

>’Although the Court did not provide a complete list of lawful requirements, it specifically cited a "background check, mental health check, training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements" as permissible.’ 2C:58-4.2d

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

An original colony, NJ ended up getting rid of its militia fine because Quakers, (a large voting block,) viewed it as a violation of their religious principles. Without the fine, militia duty viz., yearly training became impossible to enforce. And thus the end of the militia training. Aside from that, there was never any tradition of requiring any pre or post Revolutionary War citizen from taking and proving any training.
So unless the government wants to reinstall mandatory yearly militia assembling and training, where every citizen between 17-50 must attend, the government cannot document any founding era analogue remotely close to training. NJ’s “training” for carry permits does not show up until after Garner v Tennessee which is 471 U.S. 1 (1985). And the training entered the Code with the Siccardi Rule (no civilian issued carry permits. So the training was only for the quasi-LE exempted from 2C:39-5 (must have carry permit) in the 1990 2C:39-6j. There is simply no historical tradition of training to “exercise Second Amendment rights” as per Heller at 2822.

[Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar @fourboxesdiner]

Major Breaking 2A News. US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, signals NJ’s sensitive places/gun free zone laws are going bye bye. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner video explains.
https://t.co/cR3vEIN1x2

[AAGHarmeetDhillon @AAGDhillon]

The @CivilRights Division is investigating whether Pennsauken, NJ, is preventing residents from timely obtaining purchase permits to legally acquire firearms. The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution for every American—it is not a second-class right!

https://t.co/B0vlZLoS7r

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@News2ATeam Sounds very General Gage Boston 1775-ish.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

One thing that needs to be better explained, Miller’s “in common use at the time” from page 179 must be read in tandem with 178’s “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” A proper reading of Miller/Heller/McDonald/Caetano/Bruen is that military weapons are covered. The other class of weapons Miller explained (were covered) were “ or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” (Miller 178) That would be where the hunting rifle, duck gun, and non mil-spec handgun come into play.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@storm1news Use their own language against them viz., it is an insurrection.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

My guess is, SCOTUS is getting tired of all of the Heller linguistic work-arounds and like 2C:58-4.2, the incessant legislative (non 1791) new hurdles, (legislation). IMHO in one, or two of the next 2A cases, SCOTUS is going to have to plainly state that the government (state & federal) can not regulate/legislate/create Gun Control Laws that encompass the “Law-abiding responsible citizens” from Heller at 2821 (& 2816 & post at 2827). And that all the legislation from the 1960’s to Heller was unconstitutional. That is the Bright Line that needs to be clearly enunciated. Both State & Federal legislatures can regulate criminals and criminal conduct all they want. But they cannot create criminal conduct by L-ARC’s. And they cannot create new licenses, fees, tests, and expirations. And very importantly, that if the reading of Bruen N9 and Heller 2822 is that licensing and one BG check is allowable, (which is an odd reading of 1791,) that it is one, one time license for everything. To purchase, to carry, to possess at home, for handguns and long-guns, ammunition, magazines, and accoutrements. It is an easy enough single 4 paragraph page for SCOTUS to write. #onceandforall

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

Trying as hard as they can to hang on the remnants of Burton v Sills and Siccardi. (Throw in Neumann.) All of which violated what is now Heller/McDonald/Caetano/Bruen. Simple fact is, under both the “arming” clause of Article 1, Section 8, cl 16, and the Second Amendment, the State of NJ never had any authority to legislate the AWB or Mag Ban in the first place. Contra to the Burton & Siccardi precedent the State cleverly concocted in the late 60’s/early 70’s.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@GunsofLiberty75 One has to wonder John Stark’s 1st New Hampshire Regiment and Israel Putnam's Connecticut Regiment got to Bunker Hill if the citizens that comprise the militia of the Second Amendment can’t cross State lines with their weapons … military grade at that.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

>’Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).’ [Heller at 2791] #anything

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

The most interesting part of it, is that originally, viz., historically, in the govt’s of the grants to the Duke of York, through the Colonial (state) governments and at least another Century, the well armed populace, and by that I mean with Miller 179’s “ordinary military equipment” (which Ben Franklin et al,proves,) involved cannon,) was designed for the public safety.
Talk about an attempt to flip the Heller Methodology script!

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@News2ATeam The way it was set up, we were supposed to vote them out of office. Its time for that.

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@AAGHarmeetDillon Murdock is awesome citation. These two together should get rid of all fees and tests. (Get rid of the fees most likely get rid of most of the permits.) In Bruen’s Note 9, Thomas cites Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 US 147 - Supreme Court 1969. After that citation the very next sentence of Shuttlesworth reads:

"It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms." Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 322. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
[at 151.]

[Jay Factor @factorjay1]

@MorosKostas The records of the NJ Const Convention of 1947 show clearly that the 2A is part of A1 P5.