Passaic County Corrections Officer Again Denied Permit To- purchase a firearm

[Bucksnbows]

I'm say'n we all have a right to bear arms..  Its a right afforded us by the constitution..  If the woman can still legally vote, then she can still own a gun, PERIOD!!!!

 

 

 OMG... You sound like your turning into an anti... Again, there is NOTHING in the womans record suggesting she would use a gun for an illegal purpose.. When you start taking away peoples rights because they MIGHT abuse it then, where does that policy stop?.. where do you "draw the line "  there?

 

So by your logic, a mentally disturbed person can and should own guns because he or she can still vote?  Got it.

 

[BowhunterNJ]

I'm say'n we all have a right to bear arms..  Its a right afforded us by the constitution..  If the woman can still legally vote, then she can still own a gun, PERIOD!!!!

 

 

 OMG... You sound like your turning into an anti... Again, there is NOTHING in the womans record suggesting she would use a gun for an illegal purpose.. When you start taking away peoples rights because they MIGHT abuse it then, where does that policy stop?.. where do you "draw the line "  there?

 

 

So you are saying someone shouldn't be able to vote if they can't purchase a firearm?

 

I do agree with there being a "line", but where is that "line"...so as I asked before, in your opinion, what are reasons someone should NOT be allowed to purchase a firearm?  Convicted felons only?  Mental instability record?  Maybe it's a problem with plea deals in the justice system?  It's entirely possible she or others could have plead down a domestic violence to something lesser with higher fines...happens all the time and defeats the purpose of defining that "line"

[Axiom]

 

Axiom,

 

 IMO she shouldn't own a gun in any state, not just here in NJ.  There is nothing about the NJFPID that requires only a conviction to be denied.  Mental health issues don't require "convictions" nor does violence against a spouse or against LEOs.  And lastly, what does service in our military have to do with any of this?  You really lost me there.

 

Why NOT!!!??.. She hasn't been convicted of a crime. so why is she effectively being sentenced or punished for crimes she was never convicted of ?.. How can you possibly say that's the right thing to do?.. If you don't think people make false accusations and or police reports for self gain your incredibly naïve..

 

And might I also add there was no record of ANY mental health issues.. Just police speculation.. The police aren't experts, nor judges for tha matter, at mental health and their opinion should be considered worthless.. And even if she did have some kind of mental issues, that in of itself does NOT mean she would ever use a gun for an illegal purpose..

 

Its been my experience in life, Men who have served in the Military ( aka fools ) have a lot more respect for what they were prepared to die defending.. And those who have never served don't realize the value of what us Vets were defending.. The constitution must be kept unfettered and intact or its original  purpose will be defeated..

[Axiom]

 

So by your logic, a mentally disturbed person can and should own guns because he or she can still vote?  Got it.

 

 YES!!!!.. you got it..  .. And like I said, Just because someone is mentally challenged in some way ( that could probably apply to at least 50% of America )  That in of itself SHOULD NOT keep some one from owning a gun..

[Axiom]

So you are saying someone shouldn't be able to vote if they can't purchase a firearm?

 

I do agree with there being a "line", but where is that "line"...so as I asked before, in your opinion, what are reasons someone should NOT be allowed to purchase a firearm?  Convicted felons only?  Mental instability record?  Maybe it's a problem with plea deals in the justice system?  It's entirely possible she or others could have plead down a domestic violence to something lesser with higher fines...happens all the time and defeats the purpose of defining that "line"

 

 

NO!!!.. I am saying, if they can Legally vote, that means they have not committed a crime that would suspend their constitutional rights.. and that INCLUDES the 2A

[Bucksnbows]

Last word from me: NJ's FPID does not in any way 100% rely on whether or not you have been convicted of a crime.  The police are given certain latitude in issuing a card or not issuing a card based on the facts presented to them during the process.  And the applicant has the right of appeal which in this case they pursued only to lose the appeal.  This was not a case where the card was not issued for one single reason but rather for several reasons combined.  And the judge agreed in the end.  

 

Rational people don't smack around their spouses.  Rational people don't assault a law enforcement officer.  Rational people don't resist arrest.  Rational people don't "exhibit unpredictable behavior during the process".  It was the combination of these things that caused the police to not issue and on appeal a judge agreed with that decision.  She may have other appeals, I don't know.  But if you stay out of trouble, these things are a non issue.

[Axiom]

 

Last word from me:

 

 

NJ's FPID does not in any way 100% rely on whether or not you have been convicted of a crime.

 

 

True, it doesn't.. But t should..

 

 

The police are given certain latitude in issuing a card or not issuing a card based on the facts presented to them during the process

 

True.. But, The function of the Police department was never meant to include being the Judge and Jury..  And the only "Facts" eligible for consideration is the fact that the woman does NOT have a criminal record NOR a record of mental instability..  And I should further note, Having had many friends in law enforcement over the years, Most cops think everyone other than themselves are nut cases.. Heck, Most people in general think anyone who doesn't think like they do is a nut case.. The constitution was meant to protect individuals from subjective thought like that..

 

And the applicant has the right of appeal which in this case they pursued only to lose the appeal.  This was not a case where the card was not issued for one single reason but rather for several reasons combined.  And the judge agreed in the end.  

 

 

The fact that a Judge agreed with such an arbitrary decision is even more disturbing.. As you mentioned, "facts" are used to determine weather or not the women should be free to exercise the 2A.. And the only facts the court relied on was the fact that she was accused of, NOT guilty of... You agree with this?.. what if I or a group of people hate you so we all file complaints against you for whatever reason however no of us managed to obtain a single conviction.. Should you own a weapon?.. According to you NO...

 

 

Rational people don't smack around their spouses.  Rational people don't assault a law enforcement officer.  Rational people don't resist arrest.  Rational people don't "exhibit unpredictable behavior during the process".  

 

 

 It was once thought " Rational  people " don't defy the authority of the King of England...  And no " Rational person " would ever question the likes of Hitler or Saddam.....And once more, the woman was never proven to have committed  ANY of those acts you mentioned and no " Rational person " should agree anyone should lose their constitutional rights because the were simply accused of something.. Doing so makes you irrational.. So, if we follow your logic, I Think you should consider turning in your weapons before the police agree with your opinion and pay you a visit..

 

 

It was the combination of these things that caused the police to not issue and on appeal a judge agreed with that decision.  She may have other appeals, I don't know.  But if you stay out of trouble, these things are a non issue.

..

 

What do you mean by " stay out of trouble ".. what trouble has she been in?.. And before you start machine gunning off  that list of ACCUSATIONS again, show me the woman's criminal record.. Nuff said..

[230jhp]

Too much going on in that article to comment but I put on the "other site" that she did have a record of pushing a police officer , I think the application asks if you ever pushed someone not if you were ever convicted so two police officers testified she pushed and hit them but they dropped the charges.

She pushed an officer 15 years ago

[230jhp]

Last word from me: NJ's FPID does not in any way 100% rely on whether or not you have been convicted of a crime.  The police are given certain latitude in issuing a card or not issuing a card based on the facts presented to them during the process.  And the applicant has the right of appeal which in this case they pursued only to lose the appeal.  This was not a case where the card was not issued for one single reason but rather for several reasons combined.  And the judge agreed in the end.  

 

Rational people don't smack around their spouses.  Rational people don't assault a law enforcement officer.  Rational people don't resist arrest.  Rational people don't "exhibit unpredictable behavior during the process".  It was the combination of these things that caused the police to not issue and on appeal a judge agreed with that decision.  She may have other appeals, I don't know.  But if you stay out of trouble, these things are a non issue.

"The police are given certain latitude in issuing a card or not issuing a card based on the facts presented to them during the process".

 

That is exactly what is wrong with the FPID process. The police can arbitrarily deny someone their right to bear arms. NJ gun laws are in complete violation of the Second Amendment. To make matters worse NJ laws are arbitrarily applied.

 

Again the issue with pushing a cop and whatever domestic violence occurred was 15 years ago. IMO someone with rank in the Passaic County Sheriff's Department has a personal grudge against her and is using this so called latitude against her 

[230jhp]

Exactly.  Where do you draw the line of when it's reasonable to deny?

Felony conviction or adjudicated mentally unfit.

By adjudicated mentally unfit I mean with testimony from psychiatric professionals pro and con, not by former colleagues in the PCSD with an ax to grind.

[Axiom]

Felony conviction or adjudicated mentally unfit.

By adjudicated mentally unfit I mean with testimony from psychiatric professionals pro and con, not by former colleagues in the PCSD with an ax to grind.

 

 

 

YEAH!!!.. what he ^^ said..