The news you're not supposed to know...

Multimedia

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off

Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in Europe

The New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)

Article posted Nov 02 2009, 4:27 AM

Category: Politics/Corruption

Source: CBS News

N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns

by Declan McCullagh

A New Jersey appeals court has concluded that Americans have no Second Amendment right to buy a handgun.

In a case decided last week, the superior court upheld a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.

That outcome might seem like something of a surprise, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in the D.C. v. Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

But New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Stephen Skillman wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that Heller "has no impact upon the constitutionality of" the state law.

That's because, Skillman said, the Supreme Court did not strike down the District of Columbia's de facto handgun ban but instead simply ordered the city to issue a permit. In other words, while Americans may have the right in general to possess arms, the exact contours of that right have not been mapped, especially as the Second Amendment applies to state laws. (The court's majority opinion last year said: "We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.")

Look for the Supreme Court to revisit this question in a few months when it hears a case called McDonald v. Chicago. It's a constitutional challenge to Chicago's restrictive gun laws, which prohibit anyone from possessing firearms -- even in their homes -- "unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm."

New Jersey's laws are similar. They say: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder... has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section."

Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.

What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.

Oddly, the trial judge upheld that denial, without asking the police chief to testify to explain himself (another violation of state law) and after taking the unusual step of contacting Dubov's previous employers to ask about his background.

Dubov's attorney, Michael Nieschmidt, argued that the state licensing scheme was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated the Second Amendment.

Skillman concluded that while the Second Amendment doesn't apply, state law and precedent nevertheless required that Dubov receive more due process than he did. The appeals court wrote: "Accordingly, the trial court's affirmance of the police chief's denial of appellant's application for a firearms purchase permit is reversed, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing in conformity with this opinion."
___________
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com and is on Twitter as declanm. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Politics/Corruption
- A Congressman who Doesn't Cotton to the Constitution
- "You're Out Of Order! We're Asking You To Leave!"
- Piers Morgan: Now I See U.S. Government Tyranny
- CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers May Go On To Lead The FBI
- Obama Supporter Chevy Chase Justifies Gitmo
- Obama Supporter Stevie Wonder Justifies Obama's Gitmo & Wars
- Obama Tells Graduates to Reject Warnings Of Tyranny
- Colo. Politicians Threaten to Repeal Marijuana Legalization If Voters Don't Approve High Taxes

Comments 1 - 9 of 9

Add Comment

Page 1 of 1

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 8:21 AM

Link

Trying to research I keep getting censorship warnings at bridgend library. I would like to dig a little deeper on this issue if I can. One insider told me the right to bare arms is not allowed in the constitution, I didn't bother to look, I will attempt to explain why.

Reductio ad absurdum

To help american people who are worried perhaps about what the constitution actually means. Legalise, the language of law is very different from plain english, in effect doublespeak. Doublespeak is not in 1984's newspeak, perhaps that act of censorship to hide this from being exposed. To try and explain law I will start with my own conclusion which is nonsense.

People may have seen Aaron Russo in 'freedom to fascism' going round questing taxes, asking people 'show me the law'. What he didn't question was the precept, nearer the mark of a true question would be 'what is the law' as it best to start with the root, especially with these flower powers and first one must find it.

For law to apply to you or anyone else there would need to be some binding agreement, covenant, contract etc. A circular argument as a contract only exists in law. That is to say the legislative (law creator) and judicial (enforcement) systems are a bit of political wizardry, a state of mind, a contradiction or as described in alice in wonderland 'a house of cards'.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 8:35 AM

Link

It is dangerous nonsense, though people occasionaly kill other people regardless of law, because of law or for individual reasons the courts have created enough state sponsored murder to fill every court room to the roof with human blood and that tide is still flowing. To get away with such murder and mayhem, fear and ignorance are key though there are some more details to this. Crime is crated by law which is often of the form 'do this or else' or 'don't do this or else'. The threat means the law is itself a dicatorship, what would be struck out by law as a one way contract (contradiction) based on that duress. For a fee likely any attorney will tell you this. Thus crime (legislative) and punishment (judicial) is gang warfare, whole nations are slaughtered by it.

Constitutions often include a clause that allows the government to be overthrown in the event of it being corrupt. A quiet thought might reveal a contradiction right there. To foist private interests on people, private contracts like from constitutions to the geneva conventions, there are clauses to say if it is corrupt you can overthrow it, ie leaving room for a fake contract, just get people to vote or some such nonsense. Attorneys will likely tell you this for free as they live off that con.

The private insterests as a political entity own the police and courts and their purpose is to keep those in power in power. Again, proof of no contract as attempts to remove guns prove.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 8:44 AM

Link

I tried to read a book called 'the social contract', an attempt at political (bent) phylosophy by jean-jacques rousseau (1762). It mentioned how noah carved up the world giving a third to each of his three sons, a movement the trilateral commission is front for today, the bible being a political document for world overthrow. Rousseau it seemed was invited back into the elite fold if only he could produce political phylosophy that would provide the foundation for law and society. The mess his book is represents a battle with all the contradictions he digs out trying to prove a fiction. Contradictions of the form cannot be true. If anything it was a shabby mess like george orwell's discussion of selling socialism in 'the road to wigan pier', a book about the great strike, documenting the conditions of the working class miners though not faithfully as political books are written by false prophets for political agendas.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 8:54 AM

Link

What about organised relition? Mrs Windsor is head of state, head of church, indeed public head of the enterprise some call 'the company'. In her crown courts it says in latin 'god is my right' in capitals. A theme common to many political theologies is that what we know of is creation, creation implies creator and creator is called god. What Mrs Windsor is therefore saying is that she is here, created therefore of creation as anyone else could say if they wanted to. Previously there was divine right of kings confined rule to a bloodline. This was abolished with the magna carta, the grand plan which unified church, state, all except the banks into one company. This too included a clause allow overthrowing the whole gambit without violation of law though my last check at gov.uk revealed this clause had disappeared.

One problem with politics in its various guises was debunked by science if in the hands of mankind. Church, state, perhaps the last shot at a disuised foolem all known as democracy, which though blatantly obsene allows some people to think they like it.

The control game relies on contradiction, a lie. Science, potentially a means to lifting many burdens from mankind (eg work) could perhaps create an innescapable dictatorship and along came the secret college, a second to none ring of them in britain known as universities.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 8:58 AM

Link

The template for technial dicatorship was in essence an analysis of poitics, how it works when it does fool people. If peop[le controlling other people is based on contradiction, contradiction was the method of pwer and 1984 was the dictators manual where the contradiction and thread programmed the subconscious destroying consciousness. The subliminal contradiction of 1984 was called doublethink. I don't know who or how many wrote 1984, it was in effect writting by the power cons of history, the history of trying to control everything. As people disguarded the book as fiction not recognising they were living the con, the book was doublethink of itself.

A problem for the state is that they are imprisoned most of all, contradiction their life which makes for a lot of denial. Although they say the best form of defense is to attack, the crown does this but if instead people free the state the misery of the monopoly game could be over.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 9:06 AM

Link

Someone told me that the moment children were born they wanted power, that was life. The person who said that was from the military and had been deconstructed (tavistocked) though didn't know it.

Many people seek to accumulate wealth because it is the means of achieving independance in a political economy. I recognise that as an expression of freedom from within a prison camp, people seeking ownership of their own lives, the expression of the inate will to be free.

When there is group think, there is a gang creating power over people and division among them. If gangs fight leading to war then the next dictator will be sitting watching ready to destroy everyone, a nice society for your protection of course. That would mean perhaps a thousand years of prison building because the safety people accept from government is a contradiction too.

contradiction - contra (against) diction (speech)

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 9:14 AM

Link

That is really what I wanted to say. 1984 was the end of the road, the mental roadblock of contradictions, all they had left despite knowing it was wrong and it ruins life for everyone. I went to the job center, had a look at the jobs and lots of little stuff for a few hundred pounds a month. Two jobs were different:

social service �25-31,754 pa
equality and diversity at south wales police starting at �25,731

Of course these are the important jobs in 1984, tavistock military psychiatrists, the mental bottox gurus, bust everything, minds, families, it anything works bust it.

Whereas the crown holds a one way contract in one hand (dripping with blood) and a machine gun in the other, the state mainly exists in people's minds. The people decide, you only have to fool them to have them working against each other, some sold as for 'the common good'. Contradiction again of course.

This is reall all best described as MAD, mutually assured destruction, as mad as a hatter.

They say you can't beat the system, have you looking out there and fighting it when most of that system is inside us. To be free is mainly an inward journey so that if officialdom tries to tell you do something stupid you know it is a game and can help them if they know it too and neither of you deny it. What is truth and fiction, confusing the two and you too can be mad.

Dave

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 9:35 AM

Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock_Institute
etc

Anonymous

Posted: Nov 04 2009, 11:30 PM

Link

206173

RIGHT ON DAVE!

GO
DAVE
GO!

Comments 1 - 9 of 9

Page 1 of 1

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy