Saturday, February 23, 2013

25 Proposed Gun Laws Are Up for Vote in the N.J. Assembly: It's the Wrong Approach


25 Proposed Gun Laws Are Up for Vote in the N.J. Assembly: It's the Wrong Approach

BY SYNNOVE BAKKE
SPECIAL TO NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
COMMENTARY
"We need to take a harder look at what’s really going on. Stop trying to treat the symptoms and treat the cause of the problem. Maybe we should try a little harder to help these kids before they feel so cornered that they turn into monsters." - Aaron B. Powell, United States Marine who served in Iraq

The new gun bills up for vote today in the N.J. Assembly are too many for me, a Political Junkie, to fully understand, and that says a lot.

As a parent, I was heartbroken after the tragedy in Newtown, CT. I hugged my children as soon as they walked in the door from school, and spoke with them at length about what had happened.

Among other things, I explained that there are some people in this world with mental problems, and it sometimes makes them do very bad things. I explained that they are safe, and being that I am their mom and protector, they believed me. They understood. However, some of our lawmakers do not seem to understand much.

Demonizing the right to bear arms with knee jerk laws will not bring back the poor victims in Newtown, CT. New gun laws will only prevent law-abiding citizens from the ability to protect themselves, and their families, as we know the mentally ill and criminals, with their illegal guns, will not be affected by current or any new laws.

There are over 100 million law-abiding American citizens who responsibly own firearms for target shooting, hunting, personal and home defense and collecting. They care deeply about the Second Amendment and they are the ones being targeted now.

I believe efforts to impose new restrictions on law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners are misguided. We already have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Well, after NY, that is.

Now, take this Bill, A58: It prohibits possession of ammo capable of penetrating body armor. This is already Federal law, and simply needs to be enforced.

These 25 gun bills were thrown together within months of the Newtown, CT., tragedy. I wish the Democrat controlled legislature in N.J. would work this hard and fast when it comes to our budget issues, and our state's financial issues. Instead they drag their feet and stonewall Governor Christie every step of the way.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) argues in a recent press release that violent crimes with firearms have declined since the Federal Assaults weapons ban, which for a decade restricted sale of semiautomatic rifles, and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds, expired in '04. The study was conducted by the Department of Justice.

Camden, N.J., is the most dangerous city in the nation. Why is it that N.J. cities like Newark, Camden and Trenton etc., which belong to a state with one of the strictest gun laws in the nation, have the most shootings? Even Mayor Cory Booker of Newark stated that creating new laws will not stop criminals from getting illegal weapons, and using them.

It would make sense to me that, by making all these laws, we will only empower and pad the pockets of criminals selling guns on the black market at an even higher monetary, and human cost in the long run.

In my opinion, all this talk of so-called assault weapons seems like nothing more than misguided attempts to appeal to, but only serve to fool, the uneducated public about guns. Or maybe it is that the lawmakers of our legislature are uneducated on the issue themselves? These 25 new laws up for vote tomorrow looks to me like "feel good" bills. It’s pretty much impossible to legislate unstable, mentally ill, and criminal citizens that are looking to do harm to others. They will find a way, and it won’t be through registering any weapons.

For instance, Bill A1387 - to impose gun free zones around schools. Does that look effective knowing that every mass shooting in the last 10 years has been carried out in school zones? Is a criminal or deranged person going to decide to leave his gun home because it’s a gun free zone? As a mom, I would prefer my children’s schools have at least one armed guard in the lobby, bulletproof front doors, and windows.

Our legislators' focus should be to strengthen mental healthcare in N.J., and improve the quality of data supporting the National Instant Criminal Background check system (NICS). Maybe also work more on enforcing the already strict gun laws we have in N.J.

Locally, our representatives should look at our under-reported drug problems, especially among teens but, also among citizens of all ages. Let’s look at how to better manage the mentally ill of all ages.

My final thought to our dear lawmakers: When you sit down to vote, please keep in mind that our Founding Fathers made the Second Amendment a right, and be careful before you trample on it. You will be up for re-election one day, and the electorate is watching you.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
*** ***
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

*** *** ***
About Synnove Bakke:
Synnove, a Republican Committee woman in Middlesex County, was born in N.J. to immigrant parents, but moved back to Norway as an infant, and lived there her entire childhood and young adult years. She came back to the U.S. when she was freshly graduated as a nurse, she quickly fell in love with this country and never returned to Norway to live.

Synnove has lived in a socialist country, Norway, and from that experience, studying American political history, and comparing the two nations, realized she is a Reagan Conservative Republican. She was an activist for a few years, and belonged to a few different Tea Party groups after Obama was elected in '08.

Synnove helped restart the Young Republicans in Middlesex, and soon after she became the chair. The first campaign she worked on was a county campaign in '09, based in South Plainfield, which also had a close working relationship with the Christie for Governor Campaign. Senator Sam Thompson, this campaign, along with other organizations locally ensured the sweeping Christie win in Middlesex that year.

Synnove left the Young Republicans to working with the chair Senator Sam Thompson on the Middlesex County Republican Organization, where she still works. She is also currently working for the State in another capacity, and is a Zoning board member in East Brunswick.

Gun Control vs. 911

by Joe Sinagra on Saturday, February 23, 2013 at 12:13pm ·
“Gun control is one of the best examples of laws that corner private citizens—forcing them either to put themselves into danger or to be a lawbreaker.” ~ James Bovard (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999 Introduction to ‘Dial 911 and Die’)

We take it for granted that the police must protect each of us, those beliefs are a deception in faith. Police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

On March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door in Washington, D.C., shared by three women. The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. These women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second 911 call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.

In 1987 Iowa, two men broke into a family’s home, tied up the parents, slit the mother’s throat, raped the 16-year old daughter, and drove off with the 12-year old daughter (whom they later murdered). The emergency dispatcher didn’t immediately send police to investigate the 911 call about the kidnappers/murders/rapists while the abducted little girl was still alive. First he had to take calls about a parking violation downtown and a complaint about harassing phone calls.

When the dispatcher got around to the kidnapping, he didn’t issue an all-points bulletin but instead told just one officer to come back to the police station, not even mentioning that it was an emergency. To make a long story short, even though there were many instances of incompetence and negligence the case was swiftly dismissed before going to trial as a state appeals court claimed that the authorities have no duty to protect individuals.

The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime.

State legislatures and courts protect government entities and police departments from civil liability for failing to provide adequate police protection.

A false and dangerous belief by gun control ideologists is that Private Citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.

Numerous court decisions and state laws have held that cops don’t have to do a thing to help you when you’re in danger. In other words the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.

One California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.”

Kansas statute precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to provide police or fire protection.

A Massachusetts decree states the government has no legal duty “to provide adequate police protection, prevent the commission of crimes, investigate, detect or solve crimes, identify or apprehend criminals or suspects, arrest or detain suspects, or enforce any law.”

Even the District of Columbia’s highest court states . . . the “that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

In Bowers v. DeVito, (686F. 2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) a federal appeals court ruled ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

The Constitution won’t protect you either. The US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services made it clear in its declaration that “the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

Our politicians on Capitol Hill have their own police to protect them and their families they don’t have to wait for a 911 response. The average citizen does not have that option available to them.

Gun Control will not stop the mentally insane, the criminals who rob, steal, rape and plunder. It does however prevent law abiding citizens from making the choice to protect them from harm if given the opportunity.

On average it takes officers 8.4 minutes to respond to a 911 call. There is an old saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”


                                                                   ~ Joe Sinagra

Friday, February 1, 2013

Minimum Wage . . . an Exercise in Futility

 
When the minimum wage is increased above the marginal revenue product, it becomes unprofitable for businesses to hire the least productive workers and unemployment increases.

The cost of goods will rise making the increase in the minimum moot.

Raising the minimum wage is an exercise in futility.No matter how high the increase, nor how high the wage . . . in the end there will always be a minimum scale.

The Bottom Line on Job Gains

 
WOW, 192,000 jobs were created . . . again it is in the numbers depending on who likes to follow the sheep, looking through the wool pulled over their eyes.

To get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent in 2014 we would need over 300,000 new jobs a month, every month by then.

Most of the new jobs created since February 2010 are paying significantly lower wages than the jobs lost in January 2008, not counting a decrease in benefits.

The prime losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the prevalent gains have been in lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

Bottom line it isn’t about job gains, it is more about the loss of wages and benefits.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

 
 
 
Considering Senator Menendez makes $172,000 in salary in which he has to pay for staff and overhead.

According to Bob Ingle’s Politic Patrol, “Menendez’s office said the senator paid for three trips aboard a plane owned by Dr. Salomon Melgen but it didn’t say how the trips were paid for. The Associated Press reported it found no records reporting payments to Melgen or trips aboard Melgen’s plane ...in six years worth of office and travel-related expenses for Menendez’s Senate office, or in six years worth of campaign expenses on file with the Federal Election Commission.”

Where did he come up with the $58,000?

Campaign donor Melgen also owes 11.1 million in back taxes . . . his plane wasn’t confiscated? Perhaps because of his connections this was another oversight.In light of the allegations against Senator Menendez he has decided to pay for the trips to the Dominican Republic . . . sloppy bookkeeping? I think not, perhaps backpedaling to cover the recent accusations would be more appropriate.

It took three years to come up with the money?

Anyone trying to call Senator Menendez's office . . . the staff doesn't answer or it stays busy . . . are they hiding from the pedophile sex scandal?

He can also be reached through his state offices at
Barrington New Jersey 08007

856.757.5353
856.546.1526 (fax)

Friday, November 23, 2012

Bipartisanship works; let's see it more often


Many of our state leaders crossed the aisle and put aside their partisanship to aid so many citizens in distress. As much as we would like to attack our opponents on many issues, there comes a moment in time to give credit for their ability to work in sync.

Republican and Democrat alike, Gov. Chris Christie, Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan, Assemblyman Peter Barnes, Senator Sam Thompson, Senator Jon Bramnick, our newly elected President Barack Obama, mayors, and council people, along with so many of our politicians throughout the state, came together during Hurricane Sandy without regard to party affiliation.

There was no one particular official thumping a chest grandstanding to say “Hey, look at me.” And speaking of chests, Gov. Christie went without sleep, along with having a chest cold during the crisis without complaint.

Politicians during a time of need took the time to put aside their bickering, their platform agendas, and differences. For once leadership, compassion, and innovation came through for the people of New Jersey. The proverbial “red tape” was put aside to do what had to be done, and showed what could be done when necessary.

Let’s continue to show New Jersey’s citizens our legislators can work together to benefit all and not just in a time of crisis.

~ Joe Sinagra
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20121123/NJOPINION0201/311230006/Bipartisanship-works-let-s-see-more-often

Friday, July 20, 2012

Dark Night for Colorado


Twelve people died, with fifty-nine out of seventy-one injured at a Colorado movie theater. People who for no other reason other than taking in a movie for some enjoyment out of their busy, hectic, chaotic lives.

This was premeditated murder, by a sick individual who had the presence of mind to purchase a ticket, walk through a theater, exit through a fire door, propping the door open as he went to his car which contained two 40-caliber Glock handguns, a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle; taking the time to grab a helmet, gas mask, two gas canisters, a tactical vest, throat and groin protectors, black tactical gloves and a Glock pistol.

Because a handgun was used, it now gives a pulpit for a feeding frenzy to all those anti-gun activists, due to this tragic and sad event. Is it possible, that had there been anyone in the theater with a permit to carry, or a right to carry they could have put a stop to a mad man? Could a simple thing such the activation of an alarm when the Fire Door was opened have prevented this from happening at all?

Banning guns from responsible gun-owners because of the actions of a depraved mortal, I believe is wrong. Eliminating guns will not stop those with minds like James Eagan Holmes. Taking the time and the forethought to plan out a heinous crime such as this would not hinder those like Holmes. Banning guns would not stop someone like Holmes, individuals that are so intent on harming innocent citizens would look for another alternative to obtain the end result. James Holmes would have found a way to acquire the weapons he needed for his calculated purpose, even if that meant obtaining them illegally. Taking guns away from responsible individuals will prevent them from impeding the actions of those like Holmes to further their unrealities.

There are those who now blame the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, those who are looking to take away gun owners rights citing this as an example of what happens when people have guns. Any sane person would not have done this, and anyone of sound mind with a gun would not have walked into a crowded movie theater opening fire at unarmed innocent people.

Let’s not use this tragedy as a reason to pursue a political agenda, for throwing accusations at those such as the Tea Party, blaming Rush Limbaugh, or saying that the Bane personality in the movie was a reason for what happened as a protest in reference to Romney’s Bain Capital, or any other impetus as a catapult for stupidity.

Even for arguments sake, with all guns being eliminated, if Holmes took such pains to plan out such a crime, and his intentions were to hurt as many people as possible; he could have done the same thing, using the same method without a gun. Perhaps he would have used another method such as homemade pipe bombs, zip guns, plastic explosives, and Molotov cocktails to carry out his mission. It remains to be seen, but it may have not have been beyond his capabilities as it has been reported that he placed sophisticated explosive booby traps in his apartment that would have detonated upon entry. Authorities stated they saw trip wires, bottles of liquid and containers of ammunition, fireworks and powders through a window camera.

Fifty-nine movie goers were wounded, twelve were killed, and while the ‘Dark Knight’ may rise again, there are 12 innocent people who will not.

Let’s give them the respect and attention that they deserve, and let their families grieve without the rhetoric, 2nd amendment oratories, or to allow the intrusion of politics to interfere with the reality of what took place.

This was a tragedy; the cause of ‘why’ it happened had nothing to do with guns.

 Yes, a gun was used in the process, which just gives cause for more anti-gun stump speeches. But if a gun were not used, it would have been carried out by another method, and the ‘why’ at this time is known only to a deranged character that goes by a self-named moniker of the ‘The Joker."


~ Joe Sinagra