Gun Control

72-Year-Old Former Schoolteacher Faces 10 Years in Prison for Possessing 18th Century Antique Pistol

New Jersey's draconian gun laws and mandatory minimum sentences converge.

|

||| flintock/flickr

Gordon Van Gilder is a retired New Jersey school teacher and collector of 18th century memorabilia. That innocuous hobby could land the 72-year-old behind bars for the rest of his life.

Van Gilder owns an unloaded antique 225-year-old flintlock pistol, the possession of which carries a potential 10-year prison sentence and mandatory minimum sentence of three to five-and-a-half years with no chance for parole.

When a Cumberland County sheriff's deputy pulled over Van Gilder last November for a minor traffic violation, Van Gilder—after consenting to a search—volunteered the information that the unloaded pistol was in his glove box. The next morning, according to Van Gilder's account in a video posted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), four officers showed up at his home with a warrant for his arrest.

New Jersey's strict gun laws explicitly include antique firearms, despite the fact that federal laws exempt them from most gun control regulations.

"I like to mind my own business and not bother anybody, but I have no choice here," Van Gilder said in the NRA video. "I've been thrown to the lions, so I'm going to fight back. I want these people to know they're messing with the wrong guy, because I know my rights and they're not going to get away with this."

The case is reminiscent of last summer's Shaneen Allen case, in which a Philadelphia resident and single mother of two crossed state lines and, after getting pulled over for an "unsafe lane change," voluntarily alerted a New Jersey police officer that she had a gun in her possession. She had purchased the weapon to protect her family as they lived in a bad neighborhood.

Because New Jersey does not recognize concealed carry permits issued in Pennsylvania, Allen faced three to ten years in prison. Eventually she was admitted to a pre-trial intervention program to spare her from jail time. Allen was represented by the same attorney, Evan Nappen, who is now representing Van Gilder.

In the event Van Gilder takes a plea agreement to avoid jail time, though, the felony conviction that comes with such a plea would likely jeopardize the teacher's pension Van Gilder spent 34 years accruing, according to The Washington Times.

Regardless of the outcome, Van Gilder said he's already made plans to move out of the Garden State as soon as the case wraps up.

A video report from NRA News can be viewed here:

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Eric Posner is wrong about speech codes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. to be fair- the LAST people i want having weapons (well, next to last after cops) are teachers!

    Seriously, though, WTF people?!

    1. You know who else tried to take flintlocks away from New Englanders?

      1. The MA legislature?

      2. Hitler? It’s Hitler, isn’t it?

      3. Eva Perone?

      4. I know who you’re talking about. Chubby English guy…used to run the place…talked to trees…WINSTON CHURCHILL!

      5. Mitt Romney. I remind the NRA about this everytime they call and ask why they supported him in 2012.

  2. “I want these people to know they’re messing with the wrong guy, because I know my rights and they’re not going to get away with this.”

    What are these “rights” to which you refer?

    1. yes. can you PROVE you have these rights?

      1. Show me where in the constitution it says you can do that.

        1. And don’t say the 2A because that only applied to flint-locks of the time… Uh…

          1. Nice.

          2. Of course, New jersey courts will prohibit him from raising a 2A defense because it is ‘settled law’ in New Jersey that New Jersey’s gun statutes do not violate the second amendment.

            And never forget that Chris Christie has expressed his support for New Jersey’s gun laws.

            1. Was it ‘settled’ before or after Heller and McDonald?

              1. Before; however the Supremes let stand the Drake decision where NJ’s supreme court ruled that denying the right carry (NJ is a ‘may issue’ state where only the politically connected can get a carry permit)does not burden the right to bear arms.

          3. Hahahahahaahah. Well played. 😀

      2. Actually, it would be, um, amusing if he pointed out, as so many do, that obviously the ol’ 2A permits possession of flintlock pistols.

        1. Equally nice.

        2. Is he in the militia? IS HE??!

          1. *Damn* it, he’s not able-bodied!

          2. AND REGULATION!!! MY GOD WON’T SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE REGULATION OF THE MILITIA!!!
            AND CHILDRENZ!!!

            1. “Well-regulated” refers to guns not militias! Even though it comes before “militia”, it modifies “guns”.

              /end prog

              1. “Well-regulated” at the time meant “in good working order”, or to “make regular”, i.e. a common thing.

              2. “well-regulated” means “ensured that it is working and ready when you need it” rather than “laws limiting its function and existence.”

              3. actually well regulated meant how the militia shall be operated and used. It is explained in the constitution under the same portion that talks about how the army and militia shall be conducted. but i think thats what you were eluding to.

          3. and is it under the direction of a source of ground water?

          4. If you’re not in the militia, you don’t need a gun, do you?

            So if we eliminate the militia, there will be no reason for the common sort of person to own a gun.

            /end prog

          5. Is he in the militia? IS HE??!

            Actually…

            YES!

            1. No, actually he isn’t. The unorganized militia, under federal and New Jersey law, only includes people up to age 45, and I don’t think this guy is a member of the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard).

              1. Doesn’t matter, the 2A does not state you must be a member of the militia to exercise your 2A rights.

              2. The national guard isn’t the militia referred to in the Constitution, nor does any NJ or federal law modify the Constitution.

                And what WTF says below.

                The point is that all of the citizenry is the militia, when push come to shove.

    2. Maybe he should have taken his stand *before* he consented to a search?

      1. They would have just brought a magic dog to give them an excuse.

  3. Isn’t living in NJ punishment enough for any crime, no matter how heinous? I mean, if they passed a law to send murderers there to live out the rest of their life, I bet murder rates would drop by 90%.

    1. Escape From Trenton!

      (Call me Snake)

      1. I heard you were dead.

  4. Regardless of the outcome, Van Gilder said he’s already made plans to move out of the Garden State as soon as the case wraps up.

    Wise choice.

    1. NJ is actually worse than my own state of NY. At least here you could move to a part of the state where law enforcement won’t bother you about your guns. Not so in NJ.

      1. Warren County, NJ – but don’t tell the rest of the state.

        1. Only because it’s Copland.

    2. Leave now.

  5. the prosecutor and the cops should be facing federal trials for violating this man’s civil rights.

    1. That would be awesome.

      I’m sure Holder will get right on it.

    2. Agreed – just need a lawyer to file a Federal lawsuit against them. – The US Supreme Court is probably the only way garbage laws are going to get repealed.

  6. Damn, NJ is such a bureacratic statist hell-hole. Fuck, why do people live there?

    1. The light at the end of the tunnel is NYC?

      1. I thought that was Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

      2. You mean the “small size soda and no-smoking” is at the end of the tunnel.

    2. You *do* know you don’t have to pump your own gas there?

      1. Not only do you not have to, but it’s a crime if you do.

        1. Note to self: Use less-subtle sarcasmic.

        2. Love those unions!

      2. That pisses me off when the lazy slowpoke at the pump takes his sweet time to fill the bloody tank.

  7. This is ridiculous. A flintlock pistol isn’t even a firearm under federal law. And they’re going to ruin this harmless old man because some pants-shitting scum is afraid of guns? Fuck them.

    1. The definition of firearm has many different definitions. In California, for instance, I don’t need an FFL to buy a muzzle loader, and can in fact buy them mail order, complete with conversion cylinder for shooting cartridges. But they are still illegal for prohibited felons to have. I wouldn’t be surprised if federal law is the same as for possession, although the definition may involve the 1898 cutuff date, which I don’t think California considers.

      1. and the prohibition against felons has really stopped anyone from owning/possessing firearms – much less using them.

      2. Sometimes it’s even subject to local jurisdiction. Where I used to live in CA, a bow & arrows was considered a firearm.

        1. We now know where american socialist lives.

    2. And they’re going to ruin this harmless old man because some pants-shitting scum is afraid of guns?

      Or because some asshole sheriff wants to exploit civil asset forfeiture to get himself a new toy.

      As I recall from a different story, the deputy who found the gun was going to let the matter drop. It was the sheriff who intervened to make a case out of it. What’s more, their actually going to run a ballistics test on the gun, which doesn’t have rifling.

      1. I hope it blows up on them.

      2. A non-asshole deputy (there are none) would tell the sheriff “screw you, I quit and will testify against you.”

  8. The language of 2A in conjunction w/ 14A means that State and local governments should be bound by 2A. This makes any licensing scheme or charge of merely “possessing” a firearm unconstitutional on its face. That said, I won’t hold my breath for a court decision that would support this.

    1. I think you can argue that a mere licensing requirement by itself from a trustworthy and truly limited government would not be an infringement on the RKBA. Of course we don’t have that kind of government and should assume we never will, so there’s that.

      But even if there were such a requirement, 10 years? It should be like not getting dog tags.

      1. No doubt the punishment is excessive and should be considered “cruel & unusual”.

        I contend that having to obtain a license to exercise a right that the government has been explicitly barred from interfering with constitutes an infringement. I say this because it adds a barrier and documents an innocent person as if they were a criminal. In other words, it treats one as guilty until proven innocent.

        1. That rationale only applies to abortion for reasons I am not particularly clear on.

      2. I think you can argue that a mere licensing requirement by itself from a trustworthy and truly limited government would not be an infringement on the RKBA.

        Horseshit.

        If I need to take action to secure my right, it’s a goddamned infringement.

        1. Maybe it is a good idea to have a minimal license for such a responsibility.

          Taking it a step further, it would probably be a good idea to have licenses for other Rights too, since if they are misused they can also cause harm. Especially the Right of Free Speech, and the Right of a Free Press – if those are misused the results can be very bad.

          Also, the Right of Free Exercise of Religion. I mean, who knows when some religious zealot is going to start beheading people or burning them alive? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to impose a minimal license requirement to weed out the whackos and keep us all more safe?

          1. You got “minimal” and “reasonable”. You forgot “commonsense” and “for the children”.

          2. Restoras we do require licenses in some cases involving some of those rights-see parade and event licenses. As long as the fees aren’t a problem and they are ‘shall issue’ I’m not sure they’re infringements.

            1. So, you are ok with infringements on basic rights.

              May I ask who gets to decide at what point the infringements become unreasonable?

              1. I guess I don’t see the filling out of a form to be an infringement. If we are talking fees or discretion on handing out the license then those are problems.

                1. If we are talking fees or discretion on handing out the license then those are problems.

                  Posted 8 minutes after

                  As long as the fees aren’t a problem…..

                  1. It’s funny you see a gotcha in there. I was nodding to some nominal fee in the first one because my analogy of parade permits are probably going to have such.

                    1. It’s funny how you see a fee as a problem that could infringe on your rights 8 minutes after saying the fees are okay if they aren’t a problem.

                2. I guess I don’t see the filling out of a form to be an infringement.

                  That would depend on what the form asks you to fill in, would it not?

                  When would the length and depth of the form become an infringement to you?

                  1. Of course it could come in forms that would be more like an infringement.

                    1. Right, but at what point does the form become an infringement, and who gets to decide when that takes place?

              2. To be fair, government can’t really exist at all without infringing on some basic rights. You want to keep it to a minimum, obviously, but unless you are an anarchist, you have to accept some infringement of basic rights.

                1. I’m not sure I agree, Zeb, at least with respect to the Bill of Rights.

                  Government does infringe on my ability to own property and I can see where that can be justified in order to operate basic government functions.

                  However, when it comes to things that are deemed basic/natural/whatever you want to call them, I don’t think the government has any right to infringe on speech, religion, press, personal effects and papers, or my home. It infringing on those things is not required for it to operate it’s bare functions, in general.

            2. Parades and events are more permits than licenses. I think the distinction is important. Those things might be necessary because there are limited public streets to have such events on. That is the only reason I can think of to justify requiring parade permits. As long as they have to grant a permit to anyone who wants one, I don’t have a big problem with that.
              But carrying or owning a gun doesn’t have that problem. My carrying a gun doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s plan to carry a gun, so the permits are not comparable.
              Putting tags on your dog so it can be identified is a good idea, but I don’t see what compelling interest is served by requiring it by law (beyond perhaps making sure they are vaccinated for rabies. Rabies is fucking scary).

              Shall issue permits are probably always going to be accepted by the courts, so universal shall-issue is probably the best we can hope for for concealed carry. But I honestly don’t see what interest is served there either. Lack of a piece of paper doesn’t stop people from using guns if that is what they really want to do.

              1. Well said, Zeb.

                1. Well said, Zeb.

                  +1

              2. But do you see a dog license requirement as an infringement on dog ownership?

                1. In plain English? Yes, obviously.

                  If you can’t do something without a license, then being required to have a license is an infringement of the ability to do a thing.

                  As a human being, I have a right to keep and bear arms. If the government of a place threatens to forcibly take money from me, imprison me, or harm me for not having some magic piece of paper that they issued, then clearly that is an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

                  My “license” for firearms ownership is (notionally) my birth certificate.

                  ——

                  The preceding was a philosophical position. My actual actions are in accordance with the law, because I recognize who the biggest gangs around are.

                  1. My “license” for firearms ownership is (notionally) my birth certificate.

                    Even that goes too far. Your existence as a human being should be enough.

                    1. Well, that’s why I said “notionally”. Mostly I thought it was just kind of clever. I actually agree with you.

                  2. I guess I don’t see it as an infringement. If I can own any dog as many as I want I do t see it as infringed if I have to record my ownership.

                    1. I’m a bit more concerned about why they want comprehensive records of firearm ownership at all.

                    2. I’m a bit more concerned about why they want comprehensive records of firearm ownership at all.

                      There is only one reason for this, and that’s confiscation.

                      If the government were concerned about keeping track of your property so that it could be returned to you in case of theft and subsequent recovery, then why aren’t there calls for a government database on everything we own?

                  3. Only because the idiots can’t see that we the people have them both outnumbered and outgunned.

                2. Yeah, a bit. But as with shall-issue carry permits, I’m not going to get all bent out of shape about it as long as it is inexpensive and given to anyone who asks for one.

            3. What is the point of having a license if it’s “shall issue”?

              More and more states are moving to the Constitutional carry standard, i.e. if you’re allowed to own a gun, you can carry it any way you like.

              1. The point is so that they can run background checks on people and keep a list of who is likely to be carrying. I don’t agree that that is a good thing, but that’s why. They won’t give a permit to people who come up as not-allowed to own a gun under federal or state law.

                1. A better reason is to be able to establish ownership in cases of theft or misuse.

                  1. In the case of theft, the owner could be responsible for keeping a record of the ID number on the gun.

                    In the case of misuse…what are you suggesting? If a gun is misused for something then the owner is responsible?

              2. What is the point of having a license if it’s “shall issue”?

                Reciprocity, when in an unconstitutional state requiring a permit that has reciprocity with your state of residence.

                1. States with Constitutional carry also have a carry permit system for reciprocity purposes.

                  Bo suggested mandatory (but “shall issue”) licensing for all, reciprocity then becomes pointless. So why not just have Federal Constitutional carry? Which is already outlined in the Bill of Rights.

                    1. Zeb – another ossue with CCW permits is liberal media getting a hold of the list via FOIA and publishing them.

      3. I think you can argue that a mere licensing requirement by itself from a trustworthy and truly limited government would not be an infringement on the RKBA.

        I fail to see how a licensing scheme that makes it illegal to own or carry a gun unless you have government permission isn’t a per se violation of the 2A, myself. And yes, I think even shall issue CCW licenses and bans on open carry are such obvious violations of the 2A that I believe anyone who says they are allowed under the 2A is brain-damaged.

        Having to get permission before you can exercise a right is the very core of “infringing” a right, is it not?

        1. Do you think parade permits are infringements on 1st Amendment rights?

          1. Having to get permission before you can exercise a right is the very core of “infringing” a right, is it not?

            How about you answer before posing that to RC?

            1. Restoras, I see it as more of a record keeping thing.

              Do you see dog license requirements as asking for permission to own a dog or making sure your dog can be traced back to you the owner if needed?

              1. As you said, owning a dog or a car is a privilege, not a right, so not relevant.

                The point of having rights as defined in the Bill of Rights is to guarantee them against the actions of the Government.

                Therefore, anything that imposes any restriction or difficulty, no matter how small, is an infringement on that right.

                Do you consider designated Free Speech Zones an infringement on Free Speech?

                1. Right aren’t privileges but both could be infringed. It’s an analogy. If you don’t want like the analogy use parade permits instead.

                  1. The problem with parades is they infringe on freedom of action, especially if the organizers wish to have them on main thoroughfares.

                    My right to own a gun, or spout off my beliefs, or worship whatever God I wish does not do that.

                    1. There is no freedom of action in the constitution

                    2. There is no freedom of action in the constitution

                      Ok, so what does this response address? That it is reasonable to establish a Permitting Authority for us to exercise our rights?

                2. How is owning a dog or car a privilege? Driving a car on the public roads may be. But I damn well have the right to own whatever I can legitimately acquire.

                  1. How is owning a dog or car a privilege?

                    I’m not sure that it is (curse Jefferson for bastardizing Locke…) but in the context of the Bill of Rights there may, or may not, be a difference.

                3. As you said, owning a dog or a car is a privilege, not a right, so not relevant.

                  I disagree there.

                  9A

                  1. I don’t disagree, I was attempting to isolate the argument. Clearly, since property is not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights it has been subject to an extreme level of regulation that is absurd.

                  2. When the Constitution was written, owning another person was a right. I think dogs and cars would easily qualify.

          2. I mean, owning a dog or a car are privileges, not rights, but I don’t see license requirements for either to be necessarily infringements on the privilege.

            1. No, owning whatever you can rightfully get your hands on is a right.

          3. If the permitting authority has unfettered power to deny the permit, yes.

            1. Of course

            2. Does this begs the question for anyone else, if the Permitting Authority does not have the power to deny a permit, what is the purpose of the Permitting Authority?

              1. Record keeping essentially, like the DMV and car titles

                1. Record keeping essentially

                  But that’s not all, right? It is also so the government knows where to go to issue fines and/or confiscate property, is it not? Those seem like infringements to ownership to me.

                  1. Of course, I’m just talking about the mere record keeping itself

                    1. See my original comment

                    2. As referenced above what if the permit is 500 pages long and requires you to fill it out in triplicate and file it with 3 different government agencies requiring a week long wait in line? Does it then become an infringement?

                      And yes its a ridiculous “what if” except those on the left where seriously considering minting a 1 trillion dollar coin to bypass spending and debt limits so nothing is out of the realm of possibility when statists want to be statists.

                    3. I’m just talking about the mere record keeping itself

                      For what purpose would a record need to be on file for the ownership of a gun?

                    4. If a gun is stolen or misused it’s good to be able to trace it back to it’s owner.

                    5. If a gun is stolen or misused it’s good to be able to trace it back to it’s owner.

                      But we don’t record ownership in a government database of other pieces of personal property that are often stolen, why is that?

                      In the case of misuse, what does it matter who owns it?

                2. Except you’re not required to have a title registered with the state to have a car. Only if you want to operate it on public roads. Mere ownership does not require this.

                  I have lots of friends with race cars that were built out of junkyard scrap for which the titles have been previously sent to the state as, effectively, “not cars” any more. They don’t even have titles for these vehicles.

                  1. Then use the dog license analogy instead

                    1. Then use the dog license analogy instead

                      Why? It isn’t illustrative of anything meaningful with respect to the 2A.

                    2. Yes it is, it’s illustrative of when a required recording of ownership is an infringement on ownership itself.

                    3. Then use the dog license analogy instead

                      Why? When all your other analogies and arguments have destroyed without you yet answering the question.

                      Having to get permission before you can exercise a right is the very core of “infringing” a right, is it not?

                    4. It’s always fun when someone declared on the internet that the other guys arguments have been ‘destroyed.’

                      I’ve answered that question. Just as I don’t see a required dog license as an infringement on dog ownership I don’t see a required recording of gun ownership as an infringement on RKBA. If I can own as many and whatever types of dogs or guns then the fact that I’m supposed to record that ownership doesn’t seem to infringe on it in any meaningful way.

                    5. That’s fine Bo, but it also follows that you also don’t see any infringement on 1A rights if a license is required to exercise those, either.

                      Bottom line, you are fine with infringement, as long as it is done by responsible officials.

                    6. They are required for speech and assembly situations as we’ve already discussed.

                      As I’ve said I don’t see them as an infringement so it’s wrong to say I’m ok with infringements

                    7. What if the government used that information to deny your rights? Would it be infringement then?

                    8. I don’t see them as an infringement so it’s wrong to say I’m ok with infringements

                      What if everyone else does see it as an infringement, would it be an infringement then?

                    9. If I’m required to file paperwork with the state in order to be able to have a gun then it’s not a right.

                    10. So having to file a parade permit means you have no speech and assembly rights?

                    11. If, upon invoking your right to counsel, you had to sign paperwork indicating that the counsel was in fact your chosen legal counsel would that mean you have no right to counsel?

                    12. If, upon invoking your right to counsel, you had to sign paperwork indicating that the counsel was in fact your chosen legal counsel would that mean you have no right to counsel?

                      No it does not deny you the right but it does infringe on it by requiring an action on your part to secure permission from the government.

                    13. Bo: If, upon invoking your right to counsel, you had to sign paperwork indicating that the counsel was in fact your chosen legal counsel would that mean you have no right to counsel?

                      Restoras: No it does not deny you the right but it does infringe on it by requiring an action on your part to secure permission from the government.

                      If I MUST sign a piece of paper acknowledging who my legal counsel is then it must mean I have no right to counsel unless I sign.

                    14. Restoras: No it does not deny you the right but it does infringe on it by requiring an action on your part to secure permission from the government.

                      FUQ, it seems to me that because a government is forcing you to take action to exercise your right does not mean you don’t have the right, but does mean it is infringing on it, and attempting to limit your access to it.

                    15. Restoras: No it does not deny you the right but it does infringe on it by requiring an action on your part to secure permission from the government.

                      FUQ, it seems to me that because a government is forcing you to take action to exercise your right does not mean you don’t have the right, but does mean it is infringing on it, and attempting to limit your access to it.

                      I can see it either way but I was more quoting the way I did to separate you from the idiocy of Bo’s post and to add to your post my own thoughts.

                    16. Got it, FUQ.

                    17. A parade is not free speech.

                      And the parade permit is more to get permission to close the roads to any other traffic but your own. You can have a parade anytime you want if you want to do it while sharing the road with everyone else and not violating traffic laws.

                    18. Well Bo, if I have a case requiring an attorney to defend my Constitutional rights, I now know who not to hire. Maybe you should look for a job as a prosecutor and comment at National Review and Police One.

                    19. Gun lists have always been used for general confiscation. Always.

                  2. “The titles have been previously sent to the state “

                    1. I can have a parade on my 90 acre property whenever I damn well please without a permit. The need for it on a public road is because it is a road and not a parade route. If the parade were for a specific free speech position such as equal right to marriage them the actual free speech part coyld be accomplished similiarly by a protest on the sidewalks where no permit would be needed.

              2. …if the Permitting Authority does not have the power to deny a permit, what is the purpose of the Permitting Authority?

                Taxation.

                And, in the case of firearms, ultimately confiscation.

                1. Come now, Cato, we have Top. Men. who only act in a limited and responsible fashion. That kind of thing would never happen.

                2. Thank you, Cato.

          4. Do you think parade permits are infringements on 1st Amendment rights?

            A non-sequitor.

            A parade by its nature travels slower than normal traffic and infringes other people’s right to use the public way. It isn’t a 1A issue at all.

            Possessing a gun makes no infringement on other people’s rights.

            But of course, the people who shouted “slippery slope” when “unlawful use of a weapon” would lead to this lunacy were the ones called lunatics back in the day.

        2. “I fail to see how a licensing scheme that makes it illegal to own or carry a gun unless you have government permission isn’t a per se violation of the 2A”

          The government cannot issue or revoke rights – they come from GOD or nature whatever you believe. Issuing a permit removes that right and gives the power to the Government which it doesn’t have under the Constitution.

          When the Constitution was written, it established natural(God given rights) – self preservation though the possession of weapons is one of them. There is NO provision for the revocation or restriction of this and other rights by the government or any other entity.

          Do you understand now- or do I have to continue to repeat myself to every ignoramus out there?!!

          1. ” Issuing a permit removes that right and gives the power to the Government”

            I’m talking about a system where you have to record your ownership, there’s no ‘denial’ in it

            1. For what purpose would the government need to record ownership?

              1. For what purpose would the government need to record ownership?

                And what part of the Constitution gives them the power to do so?

            2. Again, if the form is 500 pages long and requires you to file it with 100 different government agencies requiring you to stand in a week long line for each agency would it then become an infringement?

              Requiring action on your part in filing with the state to be able to exercise a right makes it not a right anymore.

              1. Bo is ok with that kind of paperwork, so it apparently isn’t an infringement, because Bo is ok with it.

      4. Sure, you can argue that. If you’re a statist pig fucker. Fuck off, statist pig fucker.

        1. Haha.

    2. you don’t need the 14th since the constitution itself says states can only regulate things not regulated by the constitution and since the 2A is already in the constitution and says “shall not be infringed”. so I never could see how states could regulated something they are told they can’t. as I see it any tax on ammo or anything or even having to apply for a permit is an infringement. but I think I’m talking to the choir here

      1. See Bo’s posts here and see if you are preaching to the choir. He is also the one true Scotsmen here and the rest of us are closet Republicans and conservatives.

  9. Next: “NJ Bans Cigarette Lighters Convertible to Flintlocks”

  10. You see, in order to prevent the remotely potential use of this gun in violence we have to commit ten years of violence against this person. Makes perfect sense!

  11. Wait, how do they duel in New Jersey, then? Just swords?

    1. blimps & blunderbusses…

      1. Firing blunderbusses while riding on top of blimps? Make it zeppelins, and that would be unusually badass for New Jersey.

      2. Blimps? What do you do if Christie is already booked up by your enemy? Are there other gas bags in NJ that can be used?

        1. There’s no end to the fat bags of gas you can find up there.

    2. Common sense flintlock control would have saved Alexander Hamilton’s life. Think of the cabinet officials!

      1. I was thinking the same, given the abundance of bureaucracy the only answer to “How do they duel?” is “Insufficiently.”

        1. Nice.

    3. The drive on the roads there.

      1. Including the shoulders.

    4. I’m pretty sure swords are illegal there too. I think you just have to throw rocks at each other.

      1. Do you have a permit for that micro-quarry, Zeb?

        1. I don’t need no stinkin’ permits for rocks. I live in a state where you can carry a sword or a gun (openly) without a permit.

      2. Recent evidence suggests they will shoot rock throwers on sight, as well…..

        1. Well dueling is illegal, so it’s all academic. They’ll just come shoot you no matter your weapon of choice.

          1. Well dueling is illegal

            What if it’s banjos?

    5. Wait, how do they duel in New Jersey, then? Just swords?

      Haven’t you ever seen “Jersey Shore”? Apparently all we do here is punch each other and fuck.

      1. Haven’t you ever seen “Jersey Shore”?

        Am I the only person who has never seen Jersey Shore? I only know about it from South Park episodes.

        1. I have only seen it when it was commented on by Beavis and Butthead. I think I got the idea.

        2. I saw one episode and was completely appalled to think that people might actually believe that is what NJ and the shore is actually like. Most of the cast wasn’t even from NJ.

        3. Stay happy, keep yourself in the dark about this.

        4. What is this South Park Jersey Shore thing that you’re talking about?

          1. SNOOKIE WANT SMUSH-SMUSH!

    6. Alexander Hamilton lost a duel to Aaron Burr in New Jersey. Hamilton died from the gunshot. Still doesn’t explain the current laws.

    7. Handbags at twenty paces.

  12. If Governor Fatfuck actually cares about gun rights and justice he’d immediately pardon the guy and use this absurd spectacle to rail against gun laws.

    If he doesn’t I sincerely hope the GOP field crucifies him for it.

    1. That would require some rather stout timber.

      1. christy is stout anyway and his head is sort of wooden…ta da

    2. Same thing was said about the Shaneen Allen case. Tubby doesn’t care.

      1. Tubby has expressed his support for New Jersey’s gun laws.

    3. Not sure NJ Gov can pardon before a conviction, but I agree with your general point.

    4. Governor Fatfuck doesn’t care about much except himself- otherwise he would actually do something. All he has done is go against the public sector unions which are unconstitutional.

      Hope he doesn’t win the nomination or else Hitlary will win.

      1. Do what exactly?

    5. Being conservative in NY/NJ/CT/MA only means you favor curbing the growth of systemic corruption to 4% a year instead of the typical 5% annual growth. Sorta like France.

    6. He has commuted gun sentences in the past.

      In fairness, the shitty NJ gun laws were passed long before Christie was elected and there isn’t a damn thing he could do about them as Governor.

      On the other hand, he sucks and will never win a Republican primary.

      http://www.thepoliticalguide.c…..Amendment/

  13. Now let’s see, is Federalism good, or is Federalism bad? Which Constitutional articles and amendments apply to which states? It’s all so confusing!!!

    1. I didn’t know the constitution varied state by state

      1. It’s a living document, it all depends on how you interpret it!

        /derp

  14. how is that intelligence cap for cops working out? about like you’d expect. smooches dumbphy.

  15. a. NEVER consent to ANYTHING concerning cops.
    b. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [emphasis mine]
    c. Fuck New Jersey in the ass with a cactus!

    1. Careful. New Jersey might like it.

    2. Objection, militia is not capitalized in the original document.

  16. never consent to a search. NEVER.

    1. never will – never cooperate with police- won’t actively antagonize them but won’t ever violate my rights voluntarily to make their lives easier either

  17. How do they “control” the out of state re-enactors who show up for Rev War or Civil War re-enactments and encampments with their muskets?

    1. Technically they could also be arrested for unlawful carrying of a firearm.

  18. “I like to mind my own business and not bother anybody, but I have no choice here,” Van Gilder said in the NRA video. “I’ve been thrown to the lions, so I’m going to fight back. I want these people to know they’re messing with the wrong guy, because I know my rights and they’re not going to get away with this.”

    Bully for him. But the poor guy is 72 years old. He’s got better things to do than waste time, money, energy, etc. on fighting this. The govt? Everyone fighting him is getting paid by the hour.

    1. wrong.

      He’s 72. He has NOTHING better to do than waste time, money, and energy fighting this.

  19. So much for that bullshit from antigunners about how “we only want a few reasonable gun laws”. Those fuckers think this kind of thing is “reasonable”.

    1. Which is why the smartest thing New Jersey can do is drop this and give they guy back his flintlock. This could very well be the case that makes the entire state gun control law unconstitutional.

  20. All the other Republican 2016 Presidential contenders should use New Jersey’s horrid firearms laws to blow Chris Christie out of the water.

    1. Easy to do since Christie has previously expressed support for New Jersey’s gun laws. Just pull up a few quotes and he is done.

  21. why are the police armed? so they can harass and older gentleman with a flintlock? pathetic excuse for so called law enforcement.

    1. Easy collar, another quota fulfillment, and an officer went home safe that night.

  22. Van Gilder?after consenting to a search?volunteered the information that the unloaded pistol was in his glove box

    Why is it so difficult for people to say “I’m sorry office, I know you’re just doing your job, but I don’t consent to warrantless searches of my vehicle” and then keep their mouths shut about what’s in the car?

    I mean, it’s one sentence followed by saying nothing. How hard is that for a teacher to figure out?

    1. The vast majority of people still believe that cops are performing a necessary function, are high trained and reasonable, and have the best interest of the public at large and the rights of the individual as their first priority.

    2. There’s a white paper on computer systems security that describes some of the human foibles that hucksters use to bypass security systems and just generally scam people. One of the weaknesses is called the Social Compliance principle:

      Society trains people not to question authority. Hustlers exploit this “suspension of suspiciousness” to make you do what they want.

      I think that protection of one’s rights similarly requires that parents teach their children that blindly obeying “authorities” is unwise.

    3. I would leave out the “I’m sorry” part.

      Never apologize for exercising your rights, no matter how “polite” it sounds because if the police gave a flying fuck about politeness they wouldn’t have asked in the first place.

  23. Doesn’t the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitution apply in New Jersey? Didn’t they ratify it?

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    1. In response to this, concerning the Allen case:

      Because New Jersey does not recognize concealed carry permits issued in Pennsylvania, Allen faced three to ten years in prison.

  24. By way of comparison, even living in (usually) generally stricter about guns Canada, any adult could buy, sell, trade, own, whatever, such a weapon with no licensing nor registration required (with some exceptions if it’s from before 1898 you’re okay, but don’t rely on me!).

    From the RCMP: “…Individuals who own only antique firearms do not need a firearms licence, nor do they need to register any of their antique firearms…There are no restrictions on selling, buying, bartering or giving away antique firearms….”

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-…..ue-eng.htm

    1. At the same time, Canadians can’t own a flail.

  25. which just drives home the very simple and critical rule:

    NEVER consent to a search.

    NEVER.

  26. Has NJ gun law changed significantly in the last decade or so? When I was a sophomore in high school there, in the late 90s, my high school history teacher not only brought his reproduction Revolutionary War musket to class, he actually took us outside one day and fired the thing as part of a demonstration. (He was big into historical reenactments.) He also let every kid in the class throw his reproduction tomahawk at a target he set up on the trunk of a big oak tree. And somehow he wasn’t arrested.

    Granted, this was a long gun, not a pistol, but still, I can’t imagine this happening now. Presumably a parent would freak out and call the cops, and presumably the cops would come down hard on him.

    1. Yes. You now need a license to purchase a long gun of any kind, and only among those that are allowed by the state. I think pistol ownership is out of the question.

      1. Ah. I moved out a long time ago, and wasn’t a gun owner to begin with, so I didn’t pay close attention to these things.

        Still, I can’t believe I had a teacher who brought a gun to school. He actually carried it around the halls sometimes. Once he took it with him into a bathroom, saying he was looking for kids sneaking smokes. We all knew he was joking around, but still, it was badass.

      2. You can own pistols, but you have to get a separate permit from the chief of police for each pistol, and you can’t carry.

    2. today he would be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, firing a firearm within city limits and on a gun free zone and domestic terrorism

      1. Yeah, which is extra sad, because he was the best teacher I had in high school. Cool guy, and a legit academic. I believe he wrote a couple books about the Alamo. He once pulled me out of Spanish class to tell me I had “kicked some serious ass” on his mid-term exam. Best compliment from a teacher ever.

    1. Two Games, One Cup.

      1. Two balls, one cup

  27. While the law is clearly stupid and un-Constitutional, why was the guy carrying around an antique flintlock pistol in his glove compartment?

  28. These seem like some pretty good people.

    http://www.AnonWeb.cf

    1. Those are not people, they are bots just like you.

    2. Failing the Turing test since Kindergarten.

  29. With the high taxes and idiotic gun laws I am surprised most people have not left NJ.

  30. Unfortunate, the retired teacher seems never to have learned the following.If/when you have nothing worth while saying,you should say exactly that, NOTHING. Otherwise,re “actions at law”, one hopes he comes out on top.

  31. my roomate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for six months but last month her check was $20790 just working on the computer for a few hours.?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  32. Start living your Dream Life… There is No Selling, No Investment and No Experience Needed! Start making Money today with our FREE system.

    You Have To See This…….. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  33. Fool we moved out of jersey in 1967 when it first went NAZI!

  34. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start…
    This is where to start???.

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  35. It’s things like this that will keep Christie from ever winning the Republican nomination. Imagine how his opponents will use all this against him.

    1. Romney banned some guns in Mass and it didn’t stop the establishment cronies at the RNC from crowning him.

  36. I can see how this is gonna go:
    He’ll be locked up during the next snowstorm, then, when he doesn’t shovel his sidewalk within 12 hours, then the sh1t will really hit the fan.
    Asset forfeiture, hell, I think they have a strong case for harvesting his kid’s organs, according to NJ law.

  37. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  38. Pointed stick!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.