Michael J. Cino writes [via ammoland.com]:
In New Jersey last week Governor Christie issued a “conditional veto” of legislation in which he indicated he was in favor of making New Jersey a “Shall Issue” state for firearms Concealed Carry licenses.
The immediate thought which came to my mind was why he didn’t take substantial steps to do just that before his Presidential run. Those steps would have helped Christie during the primaries. I do not understand why Christie insisted on going through the primaries without first taking such steps, however let’s put that aside.
My questions for the New Jersey Republican Party at this point with the Governor now taking this new stance is: WHAT authority does the Governor have to issue an Executive Order which will make New Jersey a “Shall Issue” State and does the Governor have the authority to enforce the US Constitution by requiring Police Chiefs in New Jersey and the Attorney General to recognize definitions which are consistent with the US Constitution’s Second Amendment’s plain and clear language?
Some people may claim this idea represents “executive overreach” however the reality of such an Order would be the complete opposite. Such an order would actually limit government overreach.
New Jersey citizens deserve to exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights. Americans seeking to exercise no other civil right face such extreme obstacles as Second Amendment Civil Rights.
No other civil right faces faces freedom in some States – and staunch opposition with potential criminal penalties in other States.
Existing New Jersey laws prevent New Jersey citizens from exercising their Second Amendment Civil Rights. An Executive Order from the Governor changing the definitions to enforce the US Constitution is not overreach, it is scaling back government. All government officials have the obligation to enforce the US Constitution properly.
The Governor should issue such an order.
An Executive Order should mirror the language of the US Constitution as closely as possible. “Shall Issue” is not that far from “Shall not be infringed.”
At present, New Jersey laws clearly “infringe.” There is nothing which prevents a Governor from issuing an Executive Order which states clearly that past definitions “infringe.”
Such an Order should order all police and executive branch officials in New Jersey to act in accordance with the new definitions.
“Shall Issue” is not outside the mainstream of thought in the United States today. There is nothing outlandish or radical about it.
I call on the Governor to issue an Executive Order which contains the following:
1) An Order which declares that the Second Amendment is the Supreme Law of New Jersey and the Constitution makes New Jersey a “Shall Issue” State by virtual of the language of the Second Amendment which which was ratified by New Jersey on November 20, 1789.
2) The Order directs the Attorney General and the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety to disregard all other interpretations and definitions which are inconsistent with the US Constitution Bill of Right’s Second Amendment and which are inconsistent with “Shall Issue.“
3) The Order directs all Police Departments and Chiefs in New Jersey to issue carry permit to New Jersey citizens consistent with “Shall not be infringed” by any interpretation or definition. The US Constitution makes New Jersey “Shall Issue” State.
4) The Order will direct all public officials in New Jersey, consistent with the “Full Faith and Credit” provision of the US Constitution Article Four, to recognize the carry permits issued by other States, just as New Jersey recognizes drivers’ licenses from other States.
5) The Order directs the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York to immediately negotiate with the State of New York to recognize carry permits issued by New Jersey on all Port Authority facilities so that New Jersey commuters can exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights on the way to work, at work and on the way home. The Order directs New Jersey officials at the Port Authority to negotiate with the State of New York to recognize the carry permits issued by New Jersey for all citizens working in New York City and commuting to, within and from New York.
Thank you very much,
Michael J. Cino
Government has no interest in recognizing the constitution of the united states. Its inconvenient.
They will, if they determine that doing so is in their best interest…
You’re right in the overwhelming majority of the cases because the Constitution was written for one purpose, and that was to limit the power of government.
And this is the problem with the GOPe, even when they have the power/means to stop the left, they still do not, because they do not really want to win, out of some cuckolded notion that “winning” is bad, or wrong, or the other side will “hate them”, they fear being disliked by their enemy more then being beloved by their base/allies/people/etc.
Doughnut boy is a cuck, he could end this but does not because “muh feels”.
You statement implies that the GOP actually want a small government. Last time I checked they were for never ending war, drug bans, marriage bans, immigration bans, expansions on “entitlement” programs, expansions on corporate welfare, etc. The GOP hasn’t been for small government in over 30 years. The days of Goldwater are dead and gone.
Goldwater? Small federal government != small government.
Interesting proposal, whether or not Chrispy Kreem implements it is quite another.
It sure would be a good way to see if that is what Christie actually intended with that conditional veto…
Sounds good on the surface. Just issue an executive order since that order will give us the result we want. But, there are two things to consider. First, does he have the power under NJ law and constitution to take such action? If not, do we want him to act unilaterally? After all, isn’t that our complaint with what the AG did in MA, not to mention the numerous illegal executive orders that Obama’s issued?.
I’m sure the Progs consider what the Mass. AG did was perfectly constitutional, so let’s use their very tactics to get what we want.
A government thug is only a thug when it’s not *your* thug…
If the NJ Gov does not have the authority to eliminate the good cause requirement, might he take a page from Obama’s book and “clarify” the meaning of good cause to include general self defense purposes?
Good cause: “Because I want it.”
If he’s serious about serving in the Trump admin maybe he will.
Yep. I don’t believe a word he sez. I don’t understand why this Cino dude asks “why”. Big Chris is a politician with ambition and an agenda. But even if CC has ulterior motives it’s all good for Joisey…
No one in Jersey says “joisey” I have no idea who started that but we don’t even say the New part it’s just Jersey.
“No one in Jersey says “joisey” I have no idea who started that…”
it’s a riff that Joe Piscapo on SNL did back in the day.
“I’m from Joisey! Are you from Joisey?”
And I can’t believe anyone would comment on my obvious joke about Joisey…how YOU doin’?
“And I can’t believe anyone would comment on my obvious joke about Joisey…”
The younger folks can be baffled by some of the cultural references you, I, and the others of our ‘vintage’ take for granted…
That is a bad idea. If a Governor can “restore” gun rights, he/she can take them Mass AG style without any laws to back the decision.
So, if your civil rights are being taken don’t let someone from the .gov who actually should be looking out for your civil rights restore them cause they just may be taken again at a later date?
How about a blanket pardon for convictions and pleas to non-violent gun related felonies ultimately resulting in the ceased infringement of gun and voting rights. I’m not a fan of executive orders but any exercise the results in liberal statist apoplectic conniption seizures seems to be a good use of a pen and a phone.
Even Chris Christie wouldn’t try to rule by decree.
He can but he makes the choice not to…
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled on “Concealed Carry” as a right consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The farthest they have gone was in MacDonald where it was ruled you could keep it in your home. Heller declared an individual right. With a 4-4 tie in the SC, it is unlikely, based on the current status of lower court rulings (not in favor of CC), that bringing this forward at this time would result in a change in NJ law. All I can say is VOTE TRUMP to have a chance of restoring the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Gov Christie’s conditional veto is all smoke and no fire.
Christie is a loser. He is the governor of a state with one of the worst 2nd Amendment attitudes in the country and has done little or nothing to change that. Why anyone would have supported him for POTUS is beyond me.
This is a half measure, and it is not logically supportable. For the State to issue permits, even in a “shall issue” environment, is an infringement because it is prior restraint: without the permit, the bearer of arms is exposed to criminal sanctions. Even “shall issue” allows for circumstances where the State may refuse to furnish such a license.
I applaud the effort, but Mr. Cino’s argument is based on flawed reasoning. If he wants to appeal to the 2nd Amendment, he needs to call for Constitutional carry, not “shall issue” permits.
This is one of the biggest problems we need to address as POTG; the unintentional acceptance of the opposition argument by inaccurate terminology and failures in logic.
“Existing New Jersey laws prevent New Jersey citizens from exercising their Second Amendment Civil Rights.”
1. We need to be ever vigilant in our terminology! You cannot argue in favor of the Second Amendment if you consistently, as this writer does in the article, refer to Second Amendment Civil Rights. This is a natural, CIVIL, and Constitutionally PROTECTED right. The “Constitutionally protected” portion is critically important since it emphasizes that the right exists whether or not the Constitution says so. It is not a right granted by the Constitution.
2. The argument in favor of “Shall issue” is a red herring! All laws regarding the State (or federal) government establishing criteria as to whether or not a citizen may exercise their Second Amendment PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms, and under what conditions and in what locations are plain and simple unconstitutional – “…shall not be infringed.”
Since no governor of a State may unilaterally declare that all Sate legislation violating the Second Amendment is null and void the only thing a governor CAN do (possibly, impeachment or recall is still on the table) is by Executive Order instruct their LEOs and DOJ to cease enforcing or prosecuting unconstitutional laws. It would then be up to the legislature to amend the laws to a Constitutional level, or repeal them entirely. And I wonder if such an executive order would have any effect on County or City governments, LEOs, or prosecutors?
And now next repeal states “assault weapon” ban and legalize all nfa items white shall issue sign as statement 4 gun rights !!
While I see some merit to the arguments presented in the comments section I would simply point out two words: small steps.
Here’s the issue that we face. Anti-gunners hate guns and are not going to change. Haters gonna hate. However, we can put some sunlight on their lies with small steps. Look at Ohio. Holy shit did the antis go nuts about the idea of allowing CCW in a bar. Now, Ohio doesn’t let you touch a drop of booze while you’re in the joint but that doesn’t matter the antis went nuts screaming about the coming bloodbaths in bars. The legislature ignored them and went ahead anyway. No bloodbaths.
Now that might seem inconsequential to some but it’s actually pretty big. Most people in this country are “meh” on the 2A which is why anti-gun fear mongering works to some extent. A lot of people look at it and say “I’d rather err on the side of caution because guns are dangers and the owners might be nuts”. The more we chip away at that the less argument the antis have. Now, as I said they’re not gonna change their view, but what RF calls the “gun muggles” will, over time come to accept that the antis are full of shit. Once that’s exposed our job becomes a lot easier because we don’t have to overcome the fear of firearms from non-firearm owners who aren’t anti-gun (the majority of Americans).
Compare that to Colorado where CCW is legal in bars and you can consume alcohol up to the legal limit to drive. If you wander around Colorado and ask people if it’s legal to drink in a bar while having a gun the vast majority will say “Hell no that’s not legal, it’s unsafe! Bloodbaths!” When you point out that it’s already the status quo and there are no bloodbaths where any drunks start gunfights… well I can tell you it makes quite an impression on them.
I hate to borrow from GWB but we need to “win hearts and minds” in this struggle. Most Americans don’t own a gun and don’t much care or know about the laws. If we can show that it’s safe and that the antis are full of shit they will tend to back our position. Most people who don’t shoot DO have an interest in it. I got many a fine woman (and man) into firearms by taking them to the range in college. Their approach was sheepish because “guns are bad” but they were curious. Safe instruction and a few hours later you have a brand newly minted gun rights supporter who is now looking for their first gun as soon as they can afford it.
This is great if we could finally cary in NJ, please go for it.
Please contact me to properly edit your articles prior to posting them. Many people are turned off by gun rights intellectuals that cannot even draft a properly written essay. Just saying. I will happily do this for free.
Dear Michael J. Cino
If you feel so strongly that the Second Amendment is the Supreme Law, Why didn’t you promise to introduce legislation to repeal the NFA, and make it an issue against the incumbent, when you ran?
Perhaps for the same reason we didn’t immediately invade the Japanese mainland on 8 Dec 1941. We had to island hop. Or the reason we didn’t invade Germany on that same date.
The NFA, or at least the NFA’s full auto portion, is probably the last thing we will manage to get repealed, because to the average American voter, machine guns are scary. So scary, the grabbers call other guns machine guns (or try to imply they are) to get people behind a ban.
Politics is the art of the possible. Right now loosening up carry restrictions in NJ is a hell of a lot more possible than making “machine guns” an item you can just go buy off the shelf…though I do agree you should be able to carry guns and own machine guns without some government toad’s permission.
Let’s say all.this fantasy by Cino comes to pass. A hard line leftist gets in and it all goes away. By decree. With new restrictions. And Cuomo decides he’s going the same way in new York.
This needs to be hashed out in court if not the state legislatures. Remember one thing and that is elected representatives wrote those laws and popular democracy passed them. It’s the job of the courts to reassert the constitution to push it back, not one man in an office.
Because you might not like it the next time.
This is how AG in various states are adding carry restrictions (PA), banning guns (MA), ignoring judges (MD), and on and on.
If the pantsuit gets in we won’t be ready for how she rules.
Christie acting unilaterally would be executive overreach. As much as I’d love to see a free New Jersey, one man acting alone outside his authority just degrades the rule of law and acclimates society to government by fiat.
That this particular fiat would supposedly expand liberty is inconsequential. Governments endowed with power to rule arbitrarily will naturally gravitate authoritarianism. Any intial nod toward freedom would be short-lived, as it would be reversed by the next executive and outnumbered by other mandates unencumbered by checks and balances.
Are New Jersey’s laws unconstitutional? Yes and no. Yes, by any honest reading of the Constitution. No, by the fact that, honest or not, the Supreme Court has determined such restrictions comply with the Constitution. An end run around the NJ legislature does not honor gun owners or the Constitution.
The solution is simple: If you’re a Governor, start rounding up all politicians that voted for infringing the second amendment and put them on trial for treason.
The Governor of the State of NJ is one of the most powerful governors in the US in that he (and the Lt Governor) is the only statewide elected official. He has, and uses, the veto, controls an enormous amount of patronage appointments and can shut down the state government to achieve what he wants. However, the NJ constitution does not have a clause paralleling the 2nd Amendment and the Democrat controlled Legislature is vehemently anti-gun. An executive order would be quickly met with a law drafted to supersede it. Christie’s veto would then be overridden. I’d love to see him try to change things here, but I’ve decided I’m better off moving to the Free State of SC
And they will charge you 5 dollars on the bridge to leave. It will be the best Lincoln you ever spent.
You guys are being played.
This guy is running in CD5, against the most conservative congressman in nj, Scott Garrett.
He appears to be an astroturf candidate, trying to split the conservative vote, or damaging Scott Garrett.