Home

Below is a video from Sheriffs nationwide:
Sheriffs Speak Up

Below is the letter we sent to Governor Christie. We are asking everyone to flood his office with letters, faxes and telephone calls. On Wednesday, our legislators unconstitutionally approved 23 firearms bills to be sent to the Assembly for a vote. Given the liberal and illogical ideologoy of those in charge of our NJ congress, it is likely that all 40+ Bills will make their way to the Governor’s desk. We need to speak loud, clear and in unison that the Governor should veto these Bills.

The letter posted below is there for your convience. Use whatever parts of it you wish or write a letter that is entirely your own, but write!

February 13, 2013
The Honorable Governor Chris Christie
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0001

Dear Governor Christie,

As you may know, the NJ Tea Party Caucus is comprised of numerous NJ tea parties and like-minded organizations throughout the State of New Jersey. As a group that believes in the principles of limited government supported in our Constitution, the 43 gun control laws being proposed are very disturbing. We are appealing to you as someone who is known to be a man who does not shy away from making tough decisions and as one of New Jersey’s most valiant former Attorney Generals who respects the law.
Therefore, we are asking that you consider our arguments when making your decision about whether or not to veto the legislation in question.
The Ninth Circuit Court, one of the most notoriously liberal courts in the country, held in Nordyke v. King:

The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on out east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorist may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes less likely that a band of terrorist could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.

The Supreme Court, in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, established that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own guns. In the majority opinion, Justice Anton Scalia wrote:
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. (The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).) Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
Justice Scalia went on to write:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Lastly, we would like to draw your attention to the word “infringed, as written in the Second Amendment:
“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.”

Obviously, the words “shall not” are a command not a suggestion but what exactly does the word “infringed” mean? Modern day dictionaries define the word this way:

Infringe – to disobey or disregard something, to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement; to encroach upon somebody’s rights or property – especially in a minor or gradual way.

Since the Second Amendment was written 224 years ago, a compilation of the definitions in the 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language seems to be a good reference in understanding the definition of this word as it was used nearly two hundred years ago. It is as follows:

To violate, hinder, destroy, transgress upon in any way, contravene, annihilate, take away, cause to cease, put an end to, extirpate, kill or slay, lay waste or make desolate, destroy the influence of, to bring to naught, to ruin, to pull down, to pass upon or limit in anyway, to disturb or to obstruct in any manner the rights of the people.

When considering the court precedents and the meaning of “shall not be infringed,” we propose that if the Second Amendment were written today, it would read:

An organized group of citizen soldiers who are not part of our Armed Forces are necessary to protecting the freedoms of their local communities and defending themselves and their families. Therefore, the right of all people to have and use firearms shall not be violated, transgressed upon, destroyed or hindered, injured or hurt, interrupted, disturbed, opposed, obstructed, defeated, surpassed, demolished, pulled down, ruined or annihilated, laid waste, made desolate, caused to cease, impeded, restrained or obstructed in any way.

We further urge you not to be influenced by the current tragedies we are experiencing. The laws being proposed will do nothing to allay the sociopaths who commit such violent crimes. They will only impede our ability to defend ourselves against such sociopaths by also infringing upon our most basic inalienable right to defend ourselves and our families. As is the case in the field of medicine, it should be in the field of legislation: first – do no harm! For the same reason many in our culture elect to hire armed guards for their personal protection, it would be an unequal application of the law not to permit all citizens to do the same. Should our Second Amendment right be violated for the average citizen, then we would argue that all security guards for all politicians, celebrities, and their families also be infringed upon – equally. Of course that may be preposterous – but at least the laws would be applied equally. Anything else would not only be unconstitutional, it would be hypocritical.

It is our great hope that our Governor will do the right thing and protect the very fabric of our system of government and the rights of our citizens, as he has taken an oath to do. We will look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

RoseAnn Salanitri, President
The NJ Tea Party Caucus

The NJ Tea Party Caucus is a corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey that is comprised of numerous TEA Parties and like-minded individuals and organizations throughout the State. We speak on behalf of our participating members on a variety of issues that fall within the parameters of our Mission Statement.
www.NJTeaPartyCaucus.com

Leave a Reply