Quote of the Day: NJ’s Lack of Gun Rights is Just a Technicality

“It is a simple and perfectly understandable technicality that the state of New Jersey has failed to recognize the prevailing attitude toward concealed carry, as evidenced by the trend in about 35 states. Regulation is being relaxed, laws are being stricken, constitutional carry is a hot topic in legislatures across the country. So my silly and meaningless lack of an obviously superfluous document should be discarded on the dust bin of history. Right officer?” – CBD in So, If Dreamers Are Merely “Undocumented,” May I Exercise My 2nd Amendment Rights As A Pre-Documented Concealed Carry? [via ace.mu.nu]


  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Asked about the impact of a mere “technicality”, Carol Bowne could not be reached for comment.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Check out this comment to the article:

      “Riddle me this, Batman: If showing ID to vote creates a disparate impact according to race, Doesn’t a background check for a firearms purchase create the same racist, unconstitutional disparate impact if it requires an ID?”

      And in addition, I thought the Dems were all about how ‘choice’ was a right…

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        If the “Dems” thought that choice was a right, and “equal opportunity” was a right, then they would give unborn babies the same opportunity as those who got to be born. They had a life ahead of them and those people took away their opportunity of life by means of an abortion for a completely viable person. Surely these “equal opportunity” people would allow someone’s being, conscientiousness, soul, however you see it, the “opportunity” to have existed, or the opportunity in having a “choice” in their existence.

        1. avatar JD says:

          Not to get drawn into the tired old abortion debate, but as a matter of illustrating my point. Many conservatives consider abortion bad. On another hand, we detest crime, and it comes up with a good portion of why we support the 2nd Amendment. However, my point is that positions are not often logically thought out to their conclusions, and then a logical decision made upon that. For instance, in the book Freakanomics (written by a sage economist very similar to our own John Lott), the point is made that Roe vs. Wade directly lead to a massive reduction in crime throughout the 1990s, and up until this point. Reason: lower socioeconomic folks weren’t having the kids that would grow up to be tomorrow’s criminals. I can understand one being against it for religious reasons, but there are certainly many amongst us that should be absolutely be pro-choice because of the impact on crime, let alone our stance on freedom of choice to live how we wish as gunowners and citizens. Again, not wanting to be drawn into any abortion/morality debate, but I am simply making a point. We shouldn’t necessarily be against something because the other side is for it.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Well JD, if we just murdered everyone that would end crime forever.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          JD, that’s a textbook example of treating the symptom and not the problem, being the negative influences and reduced opportunities presented to youth growing up in the inner cities.

          Fix that, and abortions have no impact.

          That’s a tougher problem though so it’s just easier and more practical to treat unborn black babies as pre-criminals.

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:


          John Lott’s work on the abortion/crime connection actually concluded the opposite of Prof. Steven Levitt (Freakonomics author) in some respects.

          For example, Lott and his research partner’s study found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to 7%. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates.

          I don’t challenge your central point that policies, even distasteful policies, can have far reaching, surprising, even beneficial, consequences. It’s just that some of the consequences may split in different directions and be simultaneously conflicting.

          If anything, its a caution against sweeping, nationwide, federally-imposed experiments in public policy. Let the states, as laboratories of democracy, conduct those experiments.

        5. avatar Wood says:

          @JD and following responders,

          Replace the “right” to abortion with free birth control, same result at lower cost. Conservatives should be frothing at the mouth to pay for birth control in the opposing ranks, even mandating it for those on wealthfare. I’ve never understood how people can be so opposed to both things.

        6. avatar Big Bill says:

          Wood says: ” I’ve never understood how people can be so opposed to both things.”
          It’s easy. Some people have strong religious beliefs that oppose both. The first amendment guarantees that those beliefs can be exercised. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
          Now you understand. You don’t have to agree with it, but at least now you understand it.

        7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Bill, I’d add that even if you have no religious convictions on the subject, some of us just think that people should be responsible for their own actions. And if you’re dumb enough to have unprotected casual sex you should have to deal with the inconvenience of raising a child or of paying child support or of contracting a venereal disease. Don’t look to me to save you from your own stupidity. Because you were too cheap to blow 50 cents on a rubber.

          Sian, that’s not treating the symptom, it’s ‘the ends justify the means’. Pure Marxist logic. The same kind of logic that was used to starve 7 million Ukrainians and slaughter 6 million Jews. Which is why any libertarian should reject Freakenomics.

      2. avatar Aaron says:

        especially as there isn’t even a constitutional right to vote!

  2. avatar Swilson says:

    Sorry, no. You must possess proper and valid paperwork to exercise the right to carry. Just like you must possess a valid permit to “protest”. And just like you must provide documentation that you are able to vote at any given polling place. And you must always have documentation proving that you are in the country legally. Oh wait…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      To be fair, voting is a privilege, not a right.

      1. avatar Chief Master says:

        Yep, and that makes the comparison even more valid.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Huh……? Ever hear of the 15th Amendment?

        Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You need to go look up what a right is. Just because some people have their voting PRIVILEGES protected under the CotUS does not make it a RIGHT available to everybody in the US. Let’s take an example…

          Everybody in America has a right to…

          Freedom of speech
          Freedom of religion
          Freedom of assembly
          Due process of law
          To be secure in their possessions etc…

          By definition, these are rights as they are not limited in scope to a specific portion of the population.

          Voting, however, is restricted to…

          American citizens
          Over 18 years of age
          With no felony record

          As such, it is a privilege as it is, by definition, not universal.
          The 15th amendment doesn’t magically turn that privilege into a right.

        2. avatar Adam says:

          pwrserge, are you retarded?

          You literally just said “Voting, however, is restricted to…

          American citizens
          Over 18 years of age
          With no felony record

          As such, it is a privilege as it is, by definition, not universal.
          The 15th amendment doesn’t magically turn that privilege into a right.”

          You know what else is restricted to American citizens over 18 years of age with no felony record? Ownership of a firearm. So are you saying that firearm ownership is also a privilege?

        3. avatar CliffoH says:

          Adam – If you agree that the government can set and enforce those standards, then yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege. If you disagree, as the Founding Fathers did, then the RKBA is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

          The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Do you see anything in those 27 words even remotely qualifying the RKBA based on age? Or based on presenting a valid government issued I.D.? Or not being a felon, for that matter?

          If the government has the authority to infringe on the Second Amendment by establishing an age under which you may not exercise your RKBA then they also have the authority to change that age to 21 years old, or 35 years old (as it is for running for president), or any arbitrary age they decide.

          A little bit infringed is like a little bit pregnant – either you is or you ain’t.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey Adam… Tell me more about how non-American citizens have a “right” to vote in US elections… I’ll wait.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          Serge has a point.

          We have allowed the government to pick and choose how things apply to minors and often there are exceptions.

          You can’t buy a gun but most states allow possession and use in some way or another, some regardless of age.

          Minor’s generally can’t enter into contracts but can work, or buy a car, in many states at 16.

          Minors generally can’t join the military or get a tattoo but parents can give permission for both, with the caveat that people under 18 can’t be given a combat posting. That last is a bit odd since the Militia Code specifically mentions the age of 17.

          Being under 18 has some odd implications for legal problems as well.

          On the other hand, I’m not aware of a single place in the land that says the 1A’s religious protections don’t extend to children. Ditto the 4th or 5th Amendments. But 1A free speech rights vary based on the minor’s location. Saying something in a public street at 15 may not be protected if you say it in a public school.

          One could argue that we’re a bit schizophrenic about how we treat people under the age of 18. So for the purposes of this discussion I’d call them a “special case” for the sake of simplicity.

          Speaking strictly of legal adults however, all the legal protections of the Bill of Rights extend to everyone on our soil be they a legal tourist, citizen or illegal immigrant they all have the same rights which are recognized by this country. Yet only one group can vote. We’re voting in U.S. elections a “natural and civil right” then a French tourist, who happened to be here on election day, could vote. Similarly, you could cross state lines and [legally] vote in mutliple states the same way you can speak or go to church in multiple states.

        6. avatar Adam says:

          I think you are all missing my point. Pwrserge was saying that voting is a privilege because it has an age restriction and only things without an age restriction can be considered a right. If that is the case, it can be said that firearm ownership is a privilege as well. I disagree with this as does our constitution when it says that both firearm ownership and voting are a right.

          I see this garbage quite frequently in the firearm community where people are just fine with voter registration and licensing but freak out when the same is applied to firearm ownership. Fact is, rights and rights and no one should be allowed to take them away from me, force me to register them, or for me to pay to use them.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I see this garbage quite frequently in the firearm community where people are just fine with voter registration and licensing but freak out when the same is applied to firearm ownership.

          That’s because the number of firearms possessed (or used) by another person has zero impact on your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Likewise, where you live and to whom your pay taxes has (in theory) zero impact on your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

          Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, the concept of voting in a democratic process requires that each person be limited to one vote. Likewise, the freedom of association and the right not to be taxed without representation require that only those who live in a given constituency, and/or those are impacted by the actions of a given elected office be able to vote for that office.

          Felons cannot vote (though IMHO they should be able to, once they have served their sentence). Felons cannot possess firearms (likewise, IMHO they should be able to, once they have served their sentence). That comparison, then, tells us nothing.

          Non-citizens and/or non-residents cannot vote. Non-citizens and or non-residents can exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

          Minors cannot vote. Minors may possess (though they may not purchase) firearms.

          Multiple ballots cast by a given individual dilutes the democratic power of every other individual participating in a given election. Multiple firearms owned by a given individual have no impact on, and do not interfere with, any other individual’s exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

  3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    It all stems from the progressive movement’s general disregard for the rule of law. Frustrated when they can’t get all the laws they want (and get rid of the laws they don’t want), they invent cute little euphemisms for criminals (undocumented immigrants) and invent “human rights” that don’t exist (access to reproductive health care).

    Creative wordsmithing is an essential part of the progressive skill set. It’s pretty much all they have.

  4. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

    “May I Exercise My 2nd Amendment Rights As A Pre-Documented Concealed Carry?”

    While I love this idea, I’m not volunteering to be the test case in NJ (Motto: Where Gun Rights Go to Die).

  5. avatar dph says:

    Not to change the subject, but where is the article about New Hampshire’s House Bill 350? Your FB page leads to a dead link.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    Don’t forget that, per Pelleteri in NJ gun owners are considered legitimate prey for the state.

    Of course they didn’t say it that way, but rather “when dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril”, which is basically the same thing.

  7. avatar Hannibal says:

    Nope… if you cross an unmarked border into NJ even with so much as a locked gun in your trunk that happens to have hollow-point ammunition (you know, the most common type of carried ammunition), you’re screwed.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email