Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Gun Store Owner on Newark Ave.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
If you read the article says this dude worked in a body shop and has an apt in Chatham... Not our man Dave !!!! How dare you besmirch his fine reputation!!! I challenge you to a duel!! Meet me @ high noon in front of Jordans!!!!!!
Posted on: 2008/10/20 4:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gun Store Owner on Newark Ave.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
 |
Quote:
Very much sounds like our JC dude - Drugs, Guns and estranged wife and kids - Sounds like your everyday JC type of lowlife.
Posted on: 2008/10/19 15:40
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Gun Store Owner on Newark Ave.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Age is wrong. Way too young, unless the ledger screwed it up.
Guy's f'd if they take it federal. NFA violations. ATF does not have a sense of humor about those. Sad, the name Dave Murray is now known for firearm "incidents" in New Jersey x2, when it should only be known for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Murray_(musician) GWB
Posted on: 2008/10/19 15:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gun Store Owner on Newark Ave.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
Joined:
2005/9/27 20:08 Last Login : 2022/9/6 11:43 From Historic Downtown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
96
|
Could this be the same guy?
http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/ ... 22430338266090.xml&coll=1
Posted on: 2008/10/19 14:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
A+
"Shut yer mouth Little Fella You Mosquito, Me Citrinella"
Posted on: 2008/7/13 3:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
With so much great material in here, we decided to set it to music.
http://www.foglizard.com/wp/?p=33 There's never a boring moment in Jersey City. Dig, Foglizard
Posted on: 2008/7/12 13:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
jediweapon wrote:
Hate to rain on your faux parade, but muskets WERE the 18th Century equivalent of uzi sub-machine guns. And while we're on the topic of parsing prose, it's been well documented (by "liberal" as well as "conservative" Constitutional scholars) that the Founders did, in fact, specifically refer to an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms when they wrote the Second Amendment.[/quote] A few thoughts from our Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ?" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788. "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution." "? the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ?" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State" The Founding Fathers on Arms "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ? from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ? the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference ? they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ? Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788 "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry American Patriot "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry American Patriot "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ? it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ? " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8[quote]
Posted on: 2008/6/11 1:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Gun shop owner's case will be sent to new grand jury
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Gun shop owner's case will be sent to new grand jury
Friday, June 06, 2008 By MICHAELANGELO CONTE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER The allegations against a Jersey City gun shop owner charged with firing his gun into the air during a scuffle on a Downtown street will be sent to a new grand jury, a judge said yesterday. David Murray, the owner of David's Sporting Goods on Second Street near Newark Avenue, was indicted on the charges of aggravated assault and four weapons counts after the May 3, 2007 incident near his store, officials said. When the charges against Murray were presented to the grand jury, jurors were told that Murray was not licensed to carry guns. Last month, Superior Court Judge Fred Theemling found that to be incorrect and three of the weapons charges were dismissed. At a brief hearing yesterday morning the prosecution announced it wanted to present the case to a new grand jury. The next hearing is set for June 27. The case is expected to be brought before a grand jury before then. On May 3, 2007 someone double-parked beside Murray's car and refused to move. A nearby security camera captured images of two men getting out of the vehicle and walking to Murray's vehicle, where there was a confrontation. At least one man can be seen swinging punches at Murray before Murray apparently fires his .357 Magnum into the air. The two men then go back to their vehicle and speed away. Only Murray was charged. Earlier this year, Murray filed charges against two men and the complaint identifies them as Donnell Rawlings and Eddie Powell. That case is still pending. Rawlings is known for his role as "Ashy Larry" on "Chapelle's Show," which aired on Comedy Central.
Posted on: 2008/6/7 6:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/3/19 18:28 Last Login : 2020/3/10 14:50 From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
292
|
Quote:
no, it was buried with him
Posted on: 2008/5/21 21:48
|
|||
|
utterly deplorable
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Were they able to take the gun from his cold, dead hands?
Posted on: 2008/5/21 21:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's excellent. What a substantive contribution! Henceforth the Bill of Rights will be segregated, ala carte, based on whether the various components are "stupid" or not. Headline "Supreme Court Renders Decision in District of Columbia v. Heller" Associated Press The firearm lobby & the perceived right of citizens to bear arms took a serious blow from a Supreme Court decision handed down today. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, focused on the question of whether or not a government entity has the right to completely restrict residents from possessing firearms. In a case watched closely by individuals on both sides of the firearm divide, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said in part, "Plaintiff would have us believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual right, rather than a collective right given only to the militia." "The Court has a long history of interpretations of the role of government for regulating firearm ownership by individuals, starting with US v. Miller in 1939 leading up to the present day.? ?While the question before us deals more narrowly with the ability of government to restrict citizen's rights within a district wholly under federal & not state juristiction, we believe a more elemental issue needs to be addressed- Is the Second Amendment stupid? We believe it is. Stupid, and a smokescreen for other issues. Like the fact that gun nuts have issues with their masculinity. Even the women. Not that there?s anything wrong with that. But this is stupid. Let?s get to the important business of mandating whether or not a right to healthcare exists in the pneumbras & eminations of the Constitution. I don?t want to give it away but here?s a sneak- It does! Maybe even for mental health services for those ?smokescreen? issues these guys have, IYKWIMAITTYD.? Charlton Heston was unavailable for comment at press time, having died last month. GWB
Posted on: 2008/5/21 15:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Does the second amendment also cover individual's rights to carry Lightsabers?
Posted on: 2008/5/21 14:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Hate to rain on your faux parade, but muskets WERE the 18th Century equivalent of uzi sub-machine guns.
And while we're on the topic of parsing prose, it's been well documented (by "liberal" as well as "conservative" Constitutional scholars) that the Founders did, in fact, specifically refer to an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Posted on: 2008/5/21 14:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
The 2nd amendment jurisprudential analysis is already happening, folks, the "pile-on murray-stylee" is so .... passe .... and excessive, no?
There's only a few spots in the country a debate like this could occur on a community forum .... must .... remove .... tin-foil .... hat .... 
Posted on: 2008/5/21 6:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2005/3/27 7:51 Last Login : 2009/6/23 4:56 From Take a wild guess
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
20
|
Quote:
Ahhhhh, but what if they had uzi's;  "I cannot tell a lie. If I had one of these badboy's, I could kick some serious Redcoat ass!"
Posted on: 2008/5/21 5:39
|
|||
|
Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Nice analogy. Hand writing on paper vs. Uzi sub-machine guns. This debate is so old. Why do gun freaks always use this stupid 2nd Amendment as an argument? Deep down inside, we all know it's a smoke screen.
Posted on: 2008/5/21 4:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
"Reading the thoughts" of our founding fathers (which you say as if "they" all agreed on things and weren't a philosophically diverse group of willful, politically-minded elected officials) can be historically informative, certainly. However, any "thoughts" they had that they did not translate into the founding documents outlining our system of government and basic rights are mere thoughts. If "they" regarded unfettered private gun-ownership with no restrictions for the purpose of personal self-defense, they certainly had a funny way of writing it in the 2nd Amendment. Only those thoughts that have enough political will behind them to actually be memorialized into the final language of the legislation are part of the Constitutional provision. Not the ones that didn't have the votes to pass. I never said that the 2nd Amendment privileges the State at the expense of individuals - I merely read the Amendment to say what its plain language says, that the People's right to own and bear arms is qualified by a specific, well-regulated, legitimate State purpose. It is not paradoxical that the People can have an individual right to own weapons and bear them in the exercise of that right for the necessary purpose of protecting the State. And again, had the founders wanted this right not to be considered in this specific context, they could have said so. The 2nd Amendment is unlike all others, in that the Founders specified in the text of the Amendment itself the purpose behind their reason for enacting it. There is no analog to the opening explanation of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" in any of the other Amendments. None of them are qualified the way the 2nd Amendment is, so I'll take the founders at their word that the right they were describing required a context that none of the other rights in the entire Bill of Rights needed. Those were some smart white folk. As I said in my previous post, the freedom of the press, just as with all the other rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment, is subject to reasonable, legitimate government action. So you can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, I can't murder and eat someone because my religion dictates I should, and the New York Post can't (at least in theory) knowingly publish libelous propaganda, without any consequences. The government deciding that you packing heat while standing next to me on the PATH train during rush hour is at least as ripe for regulation and restriction as the above actions. Real sophistry is trying to ascribe a meaning to something written in plain language, divorced from the context of the entirety of the written sentence in question, solely because you want to give voice to one part of the sentence and not the other.
Posted on: 2008/5/21 4:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Indeed they did. They also specifically prohibited the government from infringing on freedom of the press. Are you suggesting that nothing more than handwritten pamphlets are now protected?
If one bothers to read the thoughts of our founding fathers one will learn that private ownership of firearms was regarded as a critical bulwark against tyranny. This is of the same cloth as their defending freedom of the press. Also, the notion that the Second Amendment, unlike all others, privileges the state at the expense of individuals is mere sophistry. Quote:
Posted on: 2008/5/21 3:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The "founders" also wrote the "right to bear arms" when muskets were being used. I don't think they had uzi sub-machine guns in mind.
Posted on: 2008/5/21 2:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The Second Amendment says nothing about a "right" to "self-defense". What the Second Amendment does say is that your right to keep and bear arms is placed in the context of maintaining a well-regulated Militia, for the "security of the State", not the individual protection of the gun-owner. Quote:
The same situation does prevail with other protected rights in the Constitution - when the government has a substantial, compelling, legitimate State interest, such as the protection of public safety, even the rights to religious freedom can be abridged. Ask the FLDS moms and their kids about that. Or Native Americans whose faith calls for them to smoke peyote as part of certain specific religious services. No one is privy to an absolute, unqualified right to religion, just as freedom of speech does not protect the person who cries FIRE in a crowded theater. Quote:
I agree that the Second Amendment protects your right to "keep" and to "bear" arms - but as above, none of the constitutional rights are absolute or unlimited. If you were interested in bearing your arms while in service of your "well regulated Militia" then I'd say by all means, the Amendment speaks to that. But of course the gun folks don't like to talk about that clause. If the framers wanted to extend to the people a right to self-defense, or a right to bear arms for individual protection or in the interest of something other than the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, they were more than capable of writing an Amendment that said just that. But they didn't.
Posted on: 2008/5/21 1:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There is the law and there is the reality. When I spoke to the JC Police about getting a carry license here they said, ?We don't issue carry licenses.? BTW, I have a carry license in CT, hardly a bastion of firearms rights but no chance here. To claim that people have their right to self-defense respected here based on some theoretical possibility is silly. Imagine if the same situation prevailed with one's right to religious freedom or freedom of speech.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, "bearing" of arms seems a lot like carrying them. Perhaps you insist on open carry? Quote:
Posted on: 2008/5/20 23:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/27 12:04 Last Login : 2016/7/1 9:09 From Southern JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1205
|
Go, Crazy Gun Store Guy, Go!
Posted on: 2008/5/12 9:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your quote is Step 2 of a 5 step process that ehow.com uses to explain how to get an unrestricted CCW permit. In NJ, an applicant must demonstrate that they have an urgent need to carry a concealed weapon. This is a high threshold, and while in practice these permits are usually only given to security professionals and/or retired law enforcement officers, that is not to say that it is an exclusive category. Unlikely =/= impossible. Regardless, trigger-happy Dave didn't have a CCW permit, right? I thought he was only permitted to carry inside his store while operating his business. I haven't found the clause in the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the right to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe somebody can find it for me?
Posted on: 2008/5/12 6:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yes, NO chance: http://www.ehow.com/how_2064612_get-p ... rry-concealed-weapon.html "Be a retired New Jersey police officer or federal officer to be entitled to an unrestricted CCW permit. You may also be an armored car worker. These are not statutory requirements, but a CCW permit is almost never issued to anyone else in New Jersey.The basis for issuing a permit is almost completely discretionary and you must demonstrate an urgent need for self-protection."
Posted on: 2008/5/12 6:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No chance? Really?
Posted on: 2008/5/12 5:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So at the end of this law abiding citizens in JC still are denied their right to effective self defense? I couldn't determine if Dave or someone pretending to be Dave was real.
It does not matter as NJ, unlike most states in our nation, is a crime enabling state. Just to spell this out, law abiding citizens who could pass any background check, have no chance of legally carrying a firearm in self defense in NJ. So only criminals carry guns. QED.
Posted on: 2008/5/12 4:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Shhhhh...
Posted on: 2008/5/12 3:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Why can't someone from the licensing authority get the IP address of dave on this site and see if its Dave the gun store dude?
Then they can see what kind of person he REALLY is and use his remarks against him and prevent him ever owning or selling a gun of any kind.
Posted on: 2008/5/12 1:14
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I had 10 bumps on my head after a ER exam. You've got 10 bumps in your head.
Posted on: 2008/5/11 23:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hearing delay irks gun store owner: Owner's licenses to sell and carry firearms still revoked
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Well at least I am in the majority. It appears that more of us have been told to drown ourselves in the Hudson River than have been told thank you. Its nice to be in good company.
Although three of the charges have been struck down there still remain 3 charges. I await with interest to see where this case goes.
Posted on: 2008/5/11 22:35
|
|||
|
||||