http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how will
the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun? How will
the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an illegal gun and
a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second Amendment?

It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho SWAT
teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms? How many
innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like criminals for the
crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed carry law. How many
people exercising that right will be attacked by Booker's police? How many
of them will have their legal weapons confiscated? How many of them will be
shot down by trigger-happy cops?



Best Regards

Tom.

Confiscate them all and let the courts sort them out.

"azotic" wrote in message
...



http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a permit,
you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.


It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...



http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a
permit, you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.


It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000. Should close the
books on many unsolved crimes. Sell a gun used in a murder to a dupe
then turn them in, use the money to buy a brand new gun.

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...



http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a
permit, you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.


It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000.

The bounty is for a *carried* firearm. Unless you don't notice the weight of
a handgun that someone has slipped into your back pocket while you weren't
looking, you're probably in the clear.

Should close the
books on many unsolved crimes. Sell a gun used in a murder to a dupe
then turn them in, use the money to buy a brand new gun.

See above. You have to jump through a few hoops to buy a handgun here (I've
done it six or seven times). You can't buy a handgun in a direct sale unless
you get a purchase permit first. You get fingerprinted, etc., and the serial
number of the gun is recorded.

It's a fairly airtight system. If you have a gun on you and you didn't jump
through all the hoops, it's a felony, whether it was used to kill someone or
not.

I wouldn't think much of it if I lived somewhere that I felt it necessary to
carry a gun while I mowed the lawn g, but, since I don't live in shooting
gallery or crime pesthole, it works OK. Newark has a gang-banger problem,
and $1000 bounties just may help cool it off.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000.

The bounty is for a *carried* firearm. Unless you don't notice the weight of
a handgun that someone has slipped into your back pocket while you weren't
looking, you're probably in the clear.

So carrying a pistol in your car is OK? And no one would hide a pistol
in your car and then turn you in, because it's OK?

Odd that the bounty is paid even if there is no conviction.

Should close the
books on many unsolved crimes. Sell a gun used in a murder to a dupe
then turn them in, use the money to buy a brand new gun.

See above. You have to jump through a few hoops to buy a handgun here (I've
done it six or seven times). You can't buy a handgun in a direct sale unless
you get a purchase permit first. You get fingerprinted, etc., and the serial
number of the gun is recorded.

It's a fairly airtight system. If you have a gun on you and you didn't jump
through all the hoops, it's a felony, whether it was used to kill someone or
not.

So there are no illegal guns, because those who seek to break a law
with a gun wouldn't break a law to get or carry a gun. I feel so much
safer now.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000.

The bounty is for a *carried* firearm. Unless you don't notice the weight
of a handgun that someone has slipped into your back pocket while you
weren't looking, you're probably in the clear.

So carrying a pistol in your car is OK?

Nope. That will get you prison time in NJ -- unless you own the gun legally,
it's in the trunk in a case (unloaded), and you're directly on your way to
one of four places: a licensed range, a gunsmith, your new home, or another
state.

And no one would hide a pistol in your car and then turn you in, because
it's OK?

It doesn't appear that Newark's bounty is for guns in cars. It's for guns
carried on a person.


Odd that the bounty is paid even if there is no conviction.

What makes you think that it is? If you have a gun on your person in NJ,
illegally, a conviction is a slam-dunk.


Should close the
books on many unsolved crimes. Sell a gun used in a murder to a dupe
then turn them in, use the money to buy a brand new gun.

See above. You have to jump through a few hoops to buy a handgun here
(I've done it six or seven times). You can't buy a handgun in a direct
sale unless you get a purchase permit first. You get fingerprinted, etc.,
and the serial number of the gun is recorded.

It's a fairly airtight system. If you have a gun on you and you didn't
jump through all the hoops, it's a felony, whether it was used to kill
someone or not.

So there are no illegal guns, because those who seek to break a law with a
gun wouldn't break a law to get or carry a gun. I feel so much safer now.

There are illegal guns, although the percentage of crimes committed with
guns is lower than many other states. As for those who seek to break a law
with a gun, that's what the bounty is all about. It might even be somewhat
effective, considering that there are a lot of folks in Newark who could use
$1000.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 10, 7:41*pm, "azotic" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...





"azotic" wrote in message
...

http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a
permit, you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.

It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000. Should close the
books on many unsolved crimes. Sell a gun used in a murder to a dupe
then turn them in, use the money to buy a brand new gun.

Best Regards
Tom.

So don't buy used guns.

Problem solved.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000.
The bounty is for a *carried* firearm. Unless you don't notice the weight
of a handgun that someone has slipped into your back pocket while you
weren't looking, you're probably in the clear.
So carrying a pistol in your car is OK?

Nope. That will get you prison time in NJ -- unless you own the gun legally,
it's in the trunk in a case (unloaded), and you're directly on your way to
one of four places: a licensed range, a gunsmith, your new home, or another
state.

As I thought.


And no one would hide a pistol in your car and then turn you in, because
it's OK?

It doesn't appear that Newark's bounty is for guns in cars. It's for guns
carried on a person.

I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.

Odd that the bounty is paid even if there is no conviction.

What makes you think that it is? If you have a gun on your person in NJ,
illegally, a conviction is a slam-dunk.

OTOH, I did hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction. I betcha a
prominent pol or his body guard wouldn't get in trouble any more than
the Hero of Chappaquiddick's bodyguard did at the Capitol.

So there are no illegal guns, because those who seek to break a law with a
gun wouldn't break a law to get or carry a gun. I feel so much safer now.

There are illegal guns, although the percentage of crimes committed with
guns is lower than many other states. As for those who seek to break a law
with a gun, that's what the bounty is all about. It might even be somewhat
effective, considering that there are a lot of folks in Newark who could use
$1000.

Or it could be about harassing legal gun owners with another program
as effective as gun buy backs.

But LEOs would never abuse their power...

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yep it will be a cash cow for gang-bangers who plant thier crime guns
on
some inocents property then turn them in for the $1000.
The bounty is for a *carried* firearm. Unless you don't notice the
weight of a handgun that someone has slipped into your back pocket
while you weren't looking, you're probably in the clear.
So carrying a pistol in your car is OK?

Nope. That will get you prison time in NJ -- unless you own the gun
legally, it's in the trunk in a case (unloaded), and you're directly on
your way to one of four places: a licensed range, a gunsmith, your new
home, or another state.

As I thought.


And no one would hide a pistol in your car and then turn you in, because
it's OK?

It doesn't appear that Newark's bounty is for guns in cars. It's for guns
carried on a person.

I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.

Odd that the bounty is paid even if there is no conviction.

What makes you think that it is? If you have a gun on your person in NJ,
illegally, a conviction is a slam-dunk.

OTOH, I did hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction. I betcha a
prominent pol or his body guard wouldn't get in trouble any more than the
Hero of Chappaquiddick's bodyguard did at the Capitol.

David, you're creating a fantasy here. Do you know Newark? Did you know that
a *judge* has to issue a CCW in NJ, and that it's good only for your home
county?

The beat cops know who is who. What this ordinance does for them is give
them cause to stop someone they'd like to stop, anyway. They aren't going to
be shooting it out with medical doctors (who get CCWs because they carry
drugs) or members of the state assembly. They're after kids and young men
who are pretty obviously not the kind of people who can get a carry permit
in NJ.

There are VERY few carry permits issued here.


So there are no illegal guns, because those who seek to break a law with
a gun wouldn't break a law to get or carry a gun. I feel so much safer
now.

There are illegal guns, although the percentage of crimes committed with
guns is lower than many other states. As for those who seek to break a
law with a gun, that's what the bounty is all about. It might even be
somewhat effective, considering that there are a lot of folks in Newark
who could use $1000.

Or it could be about harassing legal gun owners with another program as
effective as gun buy backs.

It isn't going to happen. Legal gun owners aren't walking around with guns
in this state, because they can't get a permit to carry.


But LEOs would never abuse their power...

David

It's all a figment of your imagination.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 10, 11:45*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:

[a bunch of words showing off that David isn't from New Jersey. If he
was, he would know better.]

I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.

Before you go on insulting Mr. Booker, you may want to check his
biography (excerpted below).

As far as politician's body guards being arrested? If they are
properly licensed, they won't be. If they aren't properly licensed,
they should be. Simple as that. And no, Snag and SteveB would NOT be
likely to be licensed to wear their guns, open or concealed, in NJ.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

---
http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...er/index.shtml
---

The son of civil rights activists, Cary and Carolyn Booker, who were
among the first African-American executives at IBM, Booker was born in
Washington, D.C. and grew up in the predominantly white, affluent town
of Harrington Park in Bergen County, New Jersey. Booker traveled west
to study at Stanford University, where he earned a B.A. in political
science in 1991 and an M.A. in sociology the following year. He played
varsity football — he made the All-Pacific Ten Academic team; — and
was elected to the council of (four) presidents. While he was there,
he ran The Bridge, a student-run crisis hotline and organized help for
youth in East Palo Alto from Stanford students.

He won a Rhodes Scholarship and studied at The Queen's College,
Oxford, where he was awarded an honors degree in modern history in
1994. At Oxford, he became friends with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. He
became the President of the L'Chaim Society, a Jewish group founded by
Boteach, to signify his commitment to end tensions between Jews and
African Americans.

After Oxford, he obtained a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1997 and,
while there, started and operated free legal clinics for low-income
residents of New Haven. He was also a Big Brother, and was active in
the Black Law Students Association. After law school, Booker returned
to New Jersey. He served as Staff Attorney for the Urban Justice
Center in New York and Program Coordinator of the Newark Youth
Project.

Since 1998, he has lived in Brick Towers, a notorious public housing
project in Newark's Central Ward. Booker organized tenants there to
fight for improved conditions. In November 2006, Booker left his
apartment for the top unit in a three-story rental on Hawthorne Avenue
on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued
neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots."

Booker is a churchgoing Baptist who professes an interest in Buddhism
and says that he meditates once or twice a day.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip

Since 1998, he has lived in Brick Towers, a notorious public housing
project in Newark's Central Ward. Booker organized tenants there to
fight for improved conditions. In November 2006, Booker left his
apartment for the top unit in a three-story rental on Hawthorne Avenue
on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued
neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots."


It doesn't mention that he lived in a tent for a while, in downtown Newark.
He's got a lot of guts.

He's also the first honest Newark mayor, probably in history. Nobody knows
what to do with him.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 11, 2:19*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...

snip

Since 1998, he has lived in Brick Towers, a notorious public housing
project in Newark's Central Ward. Booker organized tenants there to
fight for improved conditions. In November 2006, Booker left his
apartment for the top unit in a three-story rental on Hawthorne Avenue
on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued
neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots."

It doesn't mention that he lived in a tent for a while, in downtown Newark.
He's got a lot of guts.

He's also the first honest Newark mayor, probably in history. Nobody knows
what to do with him.

--
Ed Huntress

Booker's a stand-up guy, all right, despite the fact that he hired my
corrupt ex-mayor (Paul Fader) to try to get Newark out of what was
probably an ill-conceived deal to built the Prudential Center. But a
deal is a deal. Sharpe James started that project, along with the NJ
Devils. Had Booker & Fader been successful in killing it, it would
have stuck the Devils with a huge bill, and would probably have left
the site unfinished for many, many years.

As it turned out, they couldn't kill it, and now Cory Booker is a big
time hockey fan, having the Devils in town has been great for the
kids, and that's OK by me. But what do I know? I'm just a liberal from
NJ.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:45 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:

[a bunch of words showing off that David isn't from New Jersey. If he
was, he would know better.]

It is good to be from New Jersey, because it indicates you have left
New Jersey.

I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.

Before you go on insulting Mr. Booker, you may want to check his
biography (excerpted below).

I made no attempt to insult anyone, I merely pointed out that the
video did not distinguish between concealed carry on the person of the
alleged offender and in the car of same.

As far as politician's body guards being arrested? If they are
properly licensed, they won't be. If they aren't properly licensed,
they should be. Simple as that.

I agree. So why wasn't Ted Kennedy's bodyguard prosecuted?

And no, Snag and SteveB would NOT be
likely to be licensed to wear their guns, open or concealed, in NJ.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.

---
http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...er/index.shtml
---

The son of civil rights activists, Cary and Carolyn Booker, who were
among the first African-American executives at IBM, Booker was born in
Washington, D.C. and grew up in the predominantly white, affluent town
of Harrington Park in Bergen County, New Jersey. Booker traveled west
to study at Stanford University, where he earned a B.A. in political
science in 1991 and an M.A. in sociology the following year. He played
varsity football — he made the All-Pacific Ten Academic team; — and
was elected to the council of (four) presidents. While he was there,
he ran The Bridge, a student-run crisis hotline and organized help for
youth in East Palo Alto from Stanford students.

He won a Rhodes Scholarship and studied at The Queen's College,
Oxford, where he was awarded an honors degree in modern history in
1994. At Oxford, he became friends with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. He
became the President of the L'Chaim Society, a Jewish group founded by
Boteach, to signify his commitment to end tensions between Jews and
African Americans.

After Oxford, he obtained a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1997 and,
while there, started and operated free legal clinics for low-income
residents of New Haven. He was also a Big Brother, and was active in
the Black Law Students Association. After law school, Booker returned
to New Jersey. He served as Staff Attorney for the Urban Justice
Center in New York and Program Coordinator of the Newark Youth
Project.

Since 1998, he has lived in Brick Towers, a notorious public housing
project in Newark's Central Ward. Booker organized tenants there to
fight for improved conditions. In November 2006, Booker left his
apartment for the top unit in a three-story rental on Hawthorne Avenue
on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued
neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots."

Booker is a churchgoing Baptist who professes an interest in Buddhism
and says that he meditates once or twice a day.

Sounds like a swell guy, but from the video, I suspect his view of
human rights is lacking.

David

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...



http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a
permit, you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.


It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

What do the cops want? Guns. What have they already got to trade? Dope.
A gun off the street is gone forever, the dope is used up in a weekend.
Almost no cost to us dear taxpayers.
Too bad we have laws against such deals.

LLB

On Jul 11, 4:42*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:45 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:

[a bunch of words showing off that David isn't from New Jersey. If he
was, he would know better.]

It is good to be from New Jersey, because it indicates you have left
New Jersey.

Ha Ha. Did you just make that up?


I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.

Before you go on insulting Mr. Booker, you may want to check his
biography (excerpted below).

I made no attempt to insult anyone, I merely pointed out that the
video did not distinguish between concealed carry on the person of the
alleged offender and in the car of same.


"If you know someone carrying an illegal gun..." Which part of that is
ambiguous?



As far as politician's body guards being arrested? If they are
properly licensed, they won't be. If they aren't properly licensed,
they should be. Simple as that.

I agree. So why wasn't Ted Kennedy's bodyguard prosecuted?

A) I wouldn't know

because

B) I don't know what you're referring to.


And no, Snag and SteveB would NOT be
likely to be licensed to wear their guns, open or concealed, in NJ.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.


They are not my friends. They are two people wo, in
rec.crafts.metalworking talk about their open carry and concealed
carry exploits. One was hoping to have a Mexican "make his day" and
the other used his gun to ward off a bunch of kids who, in his mind,
were going to carjack him. Though, by his description, they were
sitting in their car 25-35 feed away, and their only "crime" was
having dark skin.

If they are honest citizens, they CAN keep arms in NJ. They canNOT
"bear" them, in the sense that Wyatt Earp did. Not in New Jersey,
anyway. They can transport them, locked in the trunk of their car, to
and from a range, and a few other special cases.

If they want to carry, they must prove a valid reason and be properly
licensed. "Because I'm afraid of people who don't look like me" is not
likely to be considered a valid reason.


---
http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...er/index.shtml
---
[biographical notes on Cory Booker deleted for space]

Sounds like a swell guy, but from the video, I suspect his view of
human rights is lacking.

A) I don't think you really watched or listened to the video.

B) I think you're probably confused about "human rights." This is a
guy who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others.
Did you actually read the bio? If the only "right" you're referring to
is the right to bear arms, well, I guess Booker values the right of
innocent bystanders to breathe a bit more important. So do I.



David

On Jul 11, 9:06*pm, "LLBrown" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



"azotic" wrote in message
...

http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/
However, there is a very obvious problem with the mayor's program - how
will the snitches tell the difference between an illegal and legal gun?

If they get their $1000, it was illegal.

How will the police tell the difference between a gang-banger with an
illegal gun and a citizen exercising his or her right under the Second
Amendment?

Hardly anyone carries legally in NJ. NJ's "concealed carry" is may-issue.
Hardly anyone gets one. There is no legal open carry. If you have a
permit, you're a doctor, a well-known lawyer, or a politician.

It is a situation destined for tragedy. How will the police and gung-ho
SWAT teams tell the difference between legal and illegal firearms?

Easy as pie. See above.

How many innocent people will be arrested, harassed, treated like
criminals for the crime of owning a firearm? New Jersey has a concealed
carry law. How many people exercising that right will be attacked by
Booker's police?

Probably none.

How many of them will have their legal weapons confiscated?

Probably none.

How many of them will be shot down by trigger-happy cops?

Probably none.

The $1000 is a pretty good deal. They'll probably rope some gang-bangers
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

What do the cops want? *Guns. *What have they already got to trade? *Dope.
A gun off the street is gone forever, the dope is used up in a weekend.
Almost no cost to us dear taxpayers.
Too bad we have laws against such deals.

LLB

Turn in a guy with a gun, get a thousand bucks, buy dope.

rangerssuck wrote:

And no, Snag and SteveB would NOT be
likely to be licensed to wear their guns, open or concealed, in NJ.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

(clipped from Mr. Birch's response , since you're in my killfile with
Cliffie and his buttbuddy Hawke)

Every citizen ,who has not done anything illegal to lose the *RIGHT* to
keep and bear arms , is *guaranteed* the right to do so by the 2nd amendment
to the Constitution of the United States .
Whether you like it or not , people have the right to defend themselves .
I choose to exercise that right by legally carrying a handgun on my person
at nearly all times . There are times and places that I cannot legally go
armed , and at those times and in those places I will not carry . The rest
of the time , there *WILL* be a firearm on my person . And I wouldn't live
in that sewage pit of a state for any reason - only place I know of that
might be more corrupt is Chicago . Isn't that the political machine that
spawned our current president ?
--
Snag
"An armed society
is a polite society."
Lazarus Long , aka
Woodrow Wilson Smith
R.A.Heinlein

"Snag" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

And no, Snag and SteveB would NOT be
likely to be licensed to wear their guns, open or concealed, in NJ.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

(clipped from Mr. Birch's response , since you're in my killfile with
Cliffie and his buttbuddy Hawke)

Every citizen ,who has not done anything illegal to lose the *RIGHT* to
keep and bear arms , is *guaranteed* the right to do so by the 2nd
amendment to the Constitution of the United States .
Whether you like it or not , people have the right to defend themselves .
I choose to exercise that right by legally carrying a handgun on my person
at nearly all times . There are times and places that I cannot legally go
armed , and at those times and in those places I will not carry . The rest
of the time , there *WILL* be a firearm on my person . And I wouldn't live
in that sewage pit of a state for any reason - only place I know of that
might be more corrupt is Chicago . Isn't that the political machine that
spawned our current president ?

Now, now. The FBI says that Louisiana is more corrupt than Illinois, and
they're both more corrupt than NJ.

We miss our exalted status. d8-)

BTW, it's a pretty nice state, overall. The salt water fishing is great.

--
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck wrote:

It is good to be from New Jersey, because it indicates you have left
New Jersey.

Ha Ha. Did you just make that up?

Yes.

I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.
Before you go on insulting Mr. Booker, you may want to check his
biography (excerpted below).
I made no attempt to insult anyone, I merely pointed out that the
video did not distinguish between concealed carry on the person of the
alleged offender and in the car of same.


"If you know someone carrying an illegal gun..." Which part of that is
ambiguous?

Carrying in his hand?
Carrying concealed?
Carrying and available in his car?
Carrying but unavailable in his car?
How do they KNOW the gun is illegal?

I was referring to that lack of distinction in the video only.


As far as politician's body guards being arrested? If they are
properly licensed, they won't be. If they aren't properly licensed,
they should be. Simple as that.
I agree. So why wasn't Ted Kennedy's bodyguard prosecuted?

A) I wouldn't know

because

B) I don't know what you're referring to.

I'm not surprised, anti-gun people seldom have real information
backing their irrational fears.

In 1986 Kennedy bodyguard Chuck Stein was arrested in the U.S. Capitol
building for carrying an unregistered handgun, two machine guns, and
146 rounds of ammunition.

I have been unable to find any reference to any charges being filed
after the arrest. As far as I can tell, Stein continued in Kennedy's
employ.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.


They are not my friends. They are two people wo, in
rec.crafts.metalworking talk about their open carry and concealed
carry exploits. One was hoping to have a Mexican "make his day" and
the other used his gun to ward off a bunch of kids who, in his mind,
were going to carjack him. Though, by his description, they were
sitting in their car 25-35 feed away, and their only "crime" was
having dark skin.

Now I know who you're talking about. I read the post of the guy at the
gas station, and, if it happened as he said, I would have done the same.


If they are honest citizens, they CAN keep arms in NJ. They canNOT
"bear" them, in the sense that Wyatt Earp did. Not in New Jersey,
anyway. They can transport them, locked in the trunk of their car, to
and from a range, and a few other special cases.

If they want to carry, they must prove a valid reason and be properly
licensed. "Because I'm afraid of people who don't look like me" is not
likely to be considered a valid reason.

If they wish to live in NJ, yes. I would say it's a good reason to not
wish to live in NJ.

[biographical notes on Cory Booker deleted for space]

Sounds like a swell guy, but from the video, I suspect his view of
human rights is lacking.

A) I don't think you really watched or listened to the video.

Did. Twice to be sure of what I heard.

B) I think you're probably confused about "human rights." This is a
guy who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others.

And yet he isn't capable of reading and understanding the US constitution.

Did you actually read the bio?

Yes. Twice, like the video.

If the only "right" you're referring to
is the right to bear arms, well, I guess Booker values the right of
innocent bystanders to breathe a bit more important. So do I.

Then he should disarm the police. Innocent bystanders are more likely
to be killed by police than by citizens with CCW permits.

David

On Jul 12, 10:54*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
It is good to be from New Jersey, because it indicates you have left
New Jersey.

Ha Ha. Did you just make that up?

Yes.



I didn't hear Hizzonor da Mayor make that distinction.
Before you go on insulting Mr. Booker, you may want to check his
biography (excerpted below).
I made no attempt to insult anyone, I merely pointed out that the
video did not distinguish between concealed carry on the person of the
alleged offender and in the car of same.

"If you know someone carrying an illegal gun..." Which part of that is
ambiguous?

Carrying in his hand?
Carrying concealed?
Carrying and available in his car?
Carrying but unavailable in his car?
How do they KNOW the gun is illegal?

I was referring to that lack of distinction in the video only.



As far as politician's body guards being arrested? If they are
properly licensed, they won't be. If they aren't properly licensed,
they should be. Simple as that.
I agree. So why wasn't Ted Kennedy's bodyguard prosecuted?

A) I wouldn't know

because

B) I don't know what you're referring to.

I'm not surprised, anti-gun people seldom have real information
backing their irrational fears.

I really don't see how my lack of knowledge about a single incident 23
years ago makes my fears irrational. Now that I do know what to what
you are referring, I would suggest that you ask someone who has deeper
knowledge of the case why there was no prosecution. That is a question
that I surely wouldn't be able to answer.

I'm sure, if you want to have a ridiculous ****ing contest, I could
come up with plenty of questions that you couldn't answer, too. For
instance: How come, in my 7th grade french class, my friend who copied
my homework every day, always got higher grades on his french homework
than I did? Same teacher, same homework, same answers, different
grades. Please contact the teacher and conduct a full inquiry into
this inequity.

In 1986 Kennedy bodyguard Chuck Stein was arrested in the U.S. Capitol
building for carrying an unregistered handgun, two machine guns, and
146 rounds of ammunition.

I have been unable to find any reference to any charges being filed
after the arrest. As far as I can tell, Stein continued in Kennedy's
employ.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.

They are not my friends. They are two people wo, in
rec.crafts.metalworking talk about their open carry and concealed
carry exploits. One was hoping to have a Mexican "make his day" and
the other used his gun to ward off a bunch of kids who, in his mind,
were going to carjack him. Though, by his description, they were
sitting in their car 25-35 feed away, and their only "crime" was
having dark skin.

Now I know who you're talking about. I read the post of the guy at the
gas station, and, if it happened as he said, I would have done the same.


And I'll re-ask the same question that I asked in that thread:
Suppose that Snag's gas station incident had gone down a little
differently. Suppose that the guys in the other car were afraid of
Snag, as he thinks they ought to have been. Suppose that, in a purely
defensive move, they had shown him that they were carrying guns.
Should Snag have then opened fire? What's the protocol here?


If they are honest citizens, they CAN keep arms in NJ. They canNOT
"bear" them, in the sense that Wyatt Earp did. Not in New Jersey,
anyway. They can transport them, locked in the trunk of their car, to
and from a range, and a few other special cases.

If they want to carry, they must prove a valid reason and be properly
licensed. "Because I'm afraid of people who don't look like me" is not
likely to be considered a valid reason.

If they wish to live in NJ, yes. I would say it's a good reason to not
wish to live in NJ.

[biographical notes on Cory Booker deleted for space]

Sounds like a swell guy, but from the video, I suspect his view of
human rights is lacking.

A) I don't think you really watched or listened to the video.

Did. Twice to be sure of what I heard.



B) I think you're probably confused about "human rights." This is a
guy who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others.

And yet he isn't capable of reading and understanding the US constitution..

Oh give it a rest. Not everyone interprets the second amendment the
same way you do. Are you part of a "well regulated militia?" And there
is most certainly room for interpretation here. If not, then I suppose
that the second amendment also gives you a right to a hydrogen bomb in
your basement. If not, why not?


Did you actually read the bio?

Yes. Twice, like the video.

If the only "right" you're referring to
is the right to bear arms, well, I guess Booker values the right of
innocent bystanders to breathe a bit more important. So do I.

Then he should disarm the police. Innocent bystanders are more likely
* to be killed by police than by citizens with CCW permits.

A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits. More cops are
killed responding to domestic violence calls than any other category.
Do you suppose that is because the vast majority of police calls are
related to domestic violence, or should they outlaw marriage? And
properly licensed gun carriers are not the subject of Booker's
campaign. He repeatedly said "ILLEGAL" hand guns. Nobody is talking
about taking away anyone's legally owned and carried weapons.

David

I'm about done with this discussion. I'm never going to change your
mind, nor you mine. For the record, though, I will state that I am a
former NRA member. I stopped renewing my membership not due to
ideological differences, but simply because I lost interest. I think
target shooting is great. I think hunting (while not for me) is OK, if
done safely and according to the rules, with the intent of eating what
you kill and with a respect for nature. I think that CCW is a valid
tool for a very few people in very particular circumstances. I think
that open carry is a throwback to the wild west, and has no place in
21st century urban or suburban civilization.

rangerssuck wrote:

I'm not surprised, anti-gun people seldom have real information
backing their irrational fears.

I really don't see how my lack of knowledge about a single incident 23
years ago makes my fears irrational. Now that I do know what to what
you are referring, I would suggest that you ask someone who has deeper
knowledge of the case why there was no prosecution. That is a question
that I surely wouldn't be able to answer.

I'm sure, if you want to have a ridiculous ****ing contest, I could
come up with plenty of questions that you couldn't answer, too. For
instance: How come, in my 7th grade french class, my friend who copied
my homework every day, always got higher grades on his french homework
than I did? Same teacher, same homework, same answers, different
grades. Please contact the teacher and conduct a full inquiry into
this inequity.

I had a similar experience at college, I loaned a students my notes
for a lecture we were both enrolled in. I went regularly, she seldom.
She got a better grade on the exams. It took me a while to figure it out.

She was smarter than I was.

Does this suggest anything about your own experience?

In 1986 Kennedy bodyguard Chuck Stein was arrested in the U.S. Capitol
building for carrying an unregistered handgun, two machine guns, and
146 rounds of ammunition.

I have been unable to find any reference to any charges being filed
after the arrest. As far as I can tell, Stein continued in Kennedy's
employ.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.
They are not my friends. They are two people wo, in
rec.crafts.metalworking talk about their open carry and concealed
carry exploits. One was hoping to have a Mexican "make his day" and
the other used his gun to ward off a bunch of kids who, in his mind,
were going to carjack him. Though, by his description, they were
sitting in their car 25-35 feed away, and their only "crime" was
having dark skin.
Now I know who you're talking about. I read the post of the guy at the
gas station, and, if it happened as he said, I would have done the same.


And I'll re-ask the same question that I asked in that thread:
Suppose that Snag's gas station incident had gone down a little
differently. Suppose that the guys in the other car were afraid of
Snag, as he thinks they ought to have been. Suppose that, in a purely
defensive move, they had shown him that they were carrying guns.
Should Snag have then opened fire? What's the protocol here?

I answered your question in another thread.

B) I think you're probably confused about "human rights." This is a
guy who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others.


And yet he isn't capable of reading and understanding the US constitution.

Oh give it a rest. Not everyone interprets the second amendment the
same way you do. Are you part of a "well regulated militia?" And there
is most certainly room for interpretation here. If not, then I suppose
that the second amendment also gives you a right to a hydrogen bomb in
your basement. If not, why not?

Yes, it does, although so far I've had no need for one and would never
be able to afford the tech needed to maintain or use one.

I'm about done with this discussion. I'm never going to change your
mind, nor you mine. For the record, though, I will state that I am a
former NRA member. I stopped renewing my membership not due to
ideological differences, but simply because I lost interest. I think
target shooting is great. I think hunting (while not for me) is OK, if
done safely and according to the rules, with the intent of eating what
you kill and with a respect for nature. I think that CCW is a valid
tool for a very few people in very particular circumstances. I think
that open carry is a throwback to the wild west, and has no place in
21st century urban or suburban civilization.

I hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are, because it will
be an expensive lesson.

David

On Jul 12, 11:38*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
I'm not surprised, anti-gun people seldom have real information
backing their irrational fears.

I really don't see how my lack of knowledge about a single incident 23
years ago makes my fears irrational. Now that I do know what to what
you are referring, I would suggest that you ask someone who has deeper
knowledge of the case why there was no prosecution. That is a question
that I surely wouldn't be able to answer.

I'm sure, if you want to have a ridiculous ****ing contest, I could
come up with plenty of questions that you couldn't answer, too. For
instance: How come, in my 7th grade french class, my friend who copied
my homework every day, always got higher grades on his french homework
than I did? Same teacher, same homework, same answers, different
grades. Please contact the teacher and conduct a full inquiry into
this inequity.

I had a similar experience at college, I loaned a students my notes
for a lecture we were both enrolled in. I went regularly, she seldom.
She got a better grade on the exams. It took me a while to figure it out.

She was smarter than I was.

Does this suggest anything about your own experience?

No. Same homework, same answers, different grades on the homework. I
never mentioned exams, on which I consistently dod better than he.

But that's missing the point entirely. I was commenting on the folly
of your expectation that I would have answers regarding an alleged
crime which took place twenty-something years ago.






In 1986 Kennedy bodyguard Chuck Stein was arrested in the U.S. Capitol
building for carrying an unregistered handgun, two machine guns, and
146 rounds of ammunition.

I have been unable to find any reference to any charges being filed
after the arrest. As far as I can tell, Stein continued in Kennedy's
employ.

I don't know these friends of yours, but if they are honest citizens
who have committed no crime, they should be able to keep and bear arms
as they wish to with no interference from govt.
They are not my friends. They are two people wo, in
rec.crafts.metalworking talk about their open carry and concealed
carry exploits. One was hoping to have a Mexican "make his day" and
the other used his gun to ward off a bunch of kids who, in his mind,
were going to carjack him. Though, by his description, they were
sitting in their car 25-35 feed away, and their only "crime" was
having dark skin.
Now I know who you're talking about. I read the post of the guy at the
gas station, and, if it happened as he said, I would have done the same.

And I'll re-ask the same question that I asked in that thread:
Suppose that Snag's gas station incident had gone down a little
differently. Suppose that the guys in the other car were afraid of
Snag, as he thinks they ought to have been. Suppose that, in a purely
defensive move, they had shown him that they were carrying guns.
Should Snag have then opened fire? What's the protocol here?

I answered your question in another thread.

You did. And we continue to disagree, and that's OK, I guess.


B) I think you're probably confused about "human rights." This is a
guy who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others.
And yet he isn't capable of reading and understanding the US constitution.

Oh give it a rest. Not everyone interprets the second amendment the
same way you do. Are you part of a "well regulated militia?" And there
is most certainly room for interpretation here. If not, then I suppose
that the second amendment also gives you a right to a hydrogen bomb in
your basement. If not, why not?

Yes, it does, although so far I've had no need for one and would never
be able to afford the tech needed to maintain or use one.

I'm about done with this discussion. I'm never going to change your
mind, nor you mine. For the record, though, I will state that I am a
former NRA member. I stopped renewing my membership not due to
ideological differences, but simply because I lost interest. I think
target shooting is great. I think hunting (while not for me) is OK, if
done safely and according to the rules, with the intent of eating what
you kill and with a respect for nature. I think that CCW is a valid
tool for a very few people in very particular circumstances. I think
that open carry is a throwback to the wild west, and has no place in
21st century urban or suburban civilization.

I hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are, because it will
be an expensive lesson.

And I hope the same for you.


David

rangerssuck wrote:

No. Same homework, same answers, different grades on the homework. I
never mentioned exams, on which I consistently dod better than he.

But that's missing the point entirely. I was commenting on the folly
of your expectation that I would have answers regarding an alleged
crime which took place twenty-something years ago.

The details of your classroom adventures are not on the Web, Ted
Kennedy's bodyguards misadventures are there for all to find.

I answered your question in another thread.

You did. And we continue to disagree, and that's OK, I guess.


I hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are, because it will
be an expensive lesson.

And I hope the same for you.

If I'm wrong, then the world is a much safer place than I've seen so far.

David

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:


Oh give it a rest. Not everyone interprets the second amendment the
same way you do. Are you part of a "well regulated militia?"

Yes..the same as you are. Unless you are a government worker of a
certain type.

Now are you prepared to carry out your duties AS a militia member?

Oddly enough...Id be extremely suprised if you said you were.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.

Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

I think that CCW is a valid
tool for a very few people in very particular circumstances.


And they are what..praytell?

Oh this is gonna be sooooo good........!


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jul 18, 7:49*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.

Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license state,
whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only get a
license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is only
applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human rights.

David

On Jul 19, 12:17*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license state,
whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only get a
license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is only
applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I have
made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision to
jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal" without
bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we consider
carrying weapons a "human right."

On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia" clause
in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I knew it or
not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm, without foul
language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to explain that
statement?

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:17 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far,
far more guns carried by police than citizens with CCW
permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?
Gunner
Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed
carry permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms
carried by NJ law enforcement officials, with serious
documentation to back up both numbers.. If you can't or won't,
I'll consider that the end of this conversation.
The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license
state, whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only
get a license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is
only applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human
rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I
have made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

I mentioned because you seem generally uninformed on the different
issues of concealed carry.

Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision
to jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal"
without bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we
consider carrying weapons a "human right."

I tend to be inclusive when considering human rights and infringements
on them by govts. The general trend of the amendments to the
Constitution is to expand human rights, with more rights recognized
for more citizens. This is within the context of rights recognized,
not granted, of course.

On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia"
clause in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I
knew it or not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm,
without foul language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to
explain that statement?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311#

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/32/chapters/3/sections/section_313.html


* United States Code
o TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
+ SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
# PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

So you could be a member of the unorganized militia if you meet the
above criteria of (a) and (b)(2). I believe members of law enforcement
and the judiciary are also excluded, but I don't have a cite for that.

If you are untrained in military practice or in the use of arms, you
qualify as "cannon fodder" to use up the opponents firepower and lower
casualties among the more responsible citizens following you.

David

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Jul 19, 12:17 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license state,
whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only get a
license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is only
applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I have
made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision to
jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal" without
bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we consider
carrying weapons a "human right."

On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia" clause
in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I knew it or
not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm, without foul
language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to explain that
statement?

============================================

You're not, if you're over 45.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 19, 9:26*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:17 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far,
far more guns carried by police than citizens with CCW
permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?
Gunner
Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed
carry permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms
carried by NJ law enforcement officials, with serious
documentation to back up both numbers.. If you can't or won't,
I'll consider that the end of this conversation.
The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license
state, whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only
get a license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is
only applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human
rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I
have made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

I mentioned because you seem generally uninformed on the different
issues of concealed carry.



Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
*was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision
to jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal"
without bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
*problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we
consider carrying weapons a "human right."

I tend to be inclusive when considering human rights and infringements
on them by govts. The general trend of the amendments to the
Constitution is to expand human rights, with more rights recognized
for more citizens. This is within the context of rights recognized,
not granted, of course.



On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia"
clause in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I
knew it or not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm,
without foul language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to
explain that statement?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311#

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/32/chapters/3/sections...

* * ** United States Code
* * * * * *o TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
* * * * * * * * *+ SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
* * * * * * * * * * * *# PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

* * * *(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
* * *males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
* * *313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
* * *declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
* * *and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
* * *National Guard.
* * * *(b) The classes of the militia are -
* * * * *(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
* * * *Guard and the Naval Militia; and
* * * * *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
* * * *the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
* * * *Naval Militia.

So you could be a member of the unorganized militia if you meet the
above criteria of (a) and (b)(2). I believe members of law enforcement
and the judiciary are also excluded, but I don't have a cite for that.

If you are untrained in military practice or in the use of arms, you
qualify as "cannon fodder" to use up the opponents firepower and lower
casualties among the more responsible citizens following you.

David

a) I do not meet the age requirements
b) what is described here is far from "well regulated"
c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.
d) you'll have a hard time convincing me that carrying a gun is a
"human right" on any scale remotely related to
http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217.htm
e) by extension, you'd be OK with your neighbor parking a fully armed
tank in his driveway or having a ready-to-go nuclear bomb in his
basement? I wouldn't.
f) Thanks very much for referring to me as "less responsible" citizen.
I guess it's just impossible to have this discussion without the
personal insults.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:34:54 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:49*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.

Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

Im still waiting for you to answer my question.

And it should be noted..that there are 56 other states (according to the
Obamassiah) that may offer CCW permits.

Your brainless provincialism is noted with amused contempt.

Now answer the question and then Ill reply to yours.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:39:22 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 12:17*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license state,
whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only get a
license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is only
applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I have
made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision to
jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal" without
bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we consider
carrying weapons a "human right."

On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia" clause
in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I knew it or
not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm, without foul
language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to explain that
statement?

Asking for cites to your obvioius buffoonery is vitro?

Snicker...

As to you being a militia member....your continued ignorance is noted
with simple contempt.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Btw...the 45 yrs old upper age limit is against established law and
precident so is effectively nullified...so simply ignore that part.
Everyone does.





"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:39:22 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 12:17 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license state,
whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only get a
license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is only
applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I have
made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision to
jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal" without
bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we consider
carrying weapons a "human right."

On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia" clause
in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I knew it or
not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm, without foul
language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to explain that
statement?

Asking for cites to your obvioius buffoonery is vitro?

Snicker...

As to you being a militia member....your continued ignorance is noted
with simple contempt.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Btw...the 45 yrs old upper age limit is against established law and
precident so is effectively nullified...so simply ignore that part.
Everyone does.

Only people who don't know what they're talking about.

The "militia of the United States," described above, is the federal militia,
which does, in fact, have an upper age limit of 45. This is confirmed most
recently in the Heller case. As the Court says in its opinion, "As we will
describe below, the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of
'the people'--those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age
range." And then, (the "below" part) "Although the militia consists of all
able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of
them."

But anyone who has read the Heller case knows that the case separated the
fundamental self-defense right from the militia issue. So Gunner's point
here is moot.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 19, 2:55*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:34:54 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck



wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far, far more
guns carried by police than citizens with CCW permits.

Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?

Gunner

Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed carry
permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms carried by NJ
law enforcement officials, with serious documentation to back up both
numbers.. If you can't or won't, I'll consider that the end of this
conversation.

Im still waiting for you to answer my question.

And it should be noted..that there are 56 other states (according to the
Obamassiah) that may offer CCW permits. *

Your brainless provincialism is noted with amused contempt.

Now answer the question and then Ill reply to yours.

Gunner

Couldn't even remain civil to answer a simple question. You're a real
piece of work, Gunner. And it should be noted that the topic of
discussion here is New Jersey, but you've now twice chosen to ignore
that.

Filed your estimated tax return yet?

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 9:26*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:17 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:49 pm, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:
A tired straw man. Perhaps that is because there are far,
far more guns carried by police than citizens with CCW
permits.
Where the hell did you get THAT factoid..erronious as it is?
Gunner
Your homework assignment is to produce the number of concealed
carry permits in New Jersey, as well as the number of firearms
carried by NJ law enforcement officials, with serious
documentation to back up both numbers.. If you can't or won't,
I'll consider that the end of this conversation.
The problem is that NJ is a "may issue" concealed carry license
state, whereas most states are "shall issue". This means you only
get a license if you're the CLEO's buddy. Your statement above is
only applicable in NJ, a state not noted for embracing human
rights.

David

This entire conversation has been about New Jersey. Why would I
have made a statement that did not apply to NJ?

I mentioned because you seem generally uninformed on the different
issues of concealed carry.



Now I'm still waiting for Gunner to provide proof that my statement
*was .erronious [sic]. As usual, he has applied his tunnel vision
to jump all over an "anti-gun" statement made by a "liberal"
without bothering to read the context.

You may consider the fact that NJ being a "may issue" state to be a
*problem. I, and the majority of NJ voters do not. Nor do we
consider carrying weapons a "human right."

I tend to be inclusive when considering human rights and infringements
on them by govts. The general trend of the amendments to the
Constitution is to expand human rights, with more rights recognized
for more citizens. This is within the context of rights recognized,
not granted, of course.



On that subject (and this was started in another thread which has
become so polluted with Gunner's vitrio; that I will no longer
participate in it), I asked about the "well regulated militia"
clause in the second amendment. Gunner stated that I, whether I
knew it or not was a member of such a militia. Without sarcasm,
without foul language, would you or Gunner (or anyone else) care to
explain that statement?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311#

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/32/chapters/3/sections...

* * ** United States Code
* * * * * *o TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
* * * * * * * * *+ SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
* * * * * * * * * * * *# PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

* * * *(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
* * *males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
* * *313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
* * *declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
* * *and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
* * *National Guard.
* * * *(b) The classes of the militia are -
* * * * *(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
* * * *Guard and the Naval Militia; and
* * * * *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
* * * *the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
* * * *Naval Militia.

So you could be a member of the unorganized militia if you meet the
above criteria of (a) and (b)(2). I believe members of law enforcement
and the judiciary are also excluded, but I don't have a cite for that.

If you are untrained in military practice or in the use of arms, you
qualify as "cannon fodder" to use up the opponents firepower and lower
casualties among the more responsible citizens following you.

David

a) I do not meet the age requirements

Actually..they are largely null and void because of the several ADA
decisions of the mid 90s. So you do meet the requirements.
b) what is described here is far from "well regulated"
What is "well regulated" in 1786 English vernacular
? You do understand that there has been some changes in the language,
do you not

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live. And kids walking through the
neighborhood carrying rifles, on their way out to the desert to hunt and
plink.

d) you'll have a hard time convincing me that carrying a gun is a
"human right" on any scale remotely related to
http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217.htm

So you believe that UN mandates are of greater value than the
Constituion and the Bill of Rights.

Fascinating. Then you DONT consider yourself first and foremost an
American? Yet you reside here and take up space better used for a trash
can.


e) by extension, you'd be OK with your neighbor parking a fully armed
tank in his driveway or having a ready-to-go nuclear bomb in his
basement? I wouldn't.

Oddly enough..one of my neighbors has a tank. A fully restored Sherman.
He is nice enough to keep parade treads on it so as to save the roadways
when he (occasionally) takes it to the A&W

As for nukes...its the same as a .22 to you loons, right? Nukes are not
covered by the Second Amendment..so you can relax.

f) Thanks very much for referring to me as "less responsible" citizen.
I guess it's just impossible to have this discussion without the
personal insults.

I failed to see any personal insults directed towards you. Observations
are not insults, unless they are too accurate and make you writhe...and
even then they only are Observatrions.

Gunner


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jul 19, 6:27*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

*Nukes are not covered by the Second Amendment..so you can relax.

Why not? David thinks they are.

On Jul 19, 6:27*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live. *And kids walking through the
neighborhood carrying rifles, on their way out to the desert to hunt and
plink.

I'm glad that makes you happy. I'm more glad that it doesn't happen in
my neighborhood.


d) you'll have a hard time convincing me that carrying a gun is a
"human right" on any scale remotely related to
http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217.htm

So you believe that UN mandates are of greater value than the
Constituion and the Bill of Rights.


Read again, carefully this time. I said that I don't consider carrying
a firearm to be in the same class as the right, say, to not have your
children stolen by the government. Before you start in on how the
liberals are stealing your kids, think about what an ass you'll look
like when you try to compare what happens in southern California to
sex slave trade in the far east.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live.

The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

Relatively speaking, Gunner lives in a violent crime pesthole. For
California as a whole, the rate of crimes committed with firearms and deaths
from firearms are both more than twice as high as those of New Jersey.

--
Ed Huntress