Mediaboss Marketing

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 Governors 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 Jerseys 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 unnecessaryan 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 serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay 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 somebodys rights or property especially in a minor or gradual way.

Read the original post:
NJ Tea Party Caucus