Gun Watch – by Dean Weingarten
Nj.com is running a poll. As with most polls concerning Second Amendment supporters, it is running strongly in favor of the right to be armed. What is a little unusual about this poll is that it directly connects the recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Drake case from New Jersey, that was all about being able to carry a weapon outside of the home, to the poll. What is nasty about the New Jersey decision is U.S. District Judge William Walls simply claiming that:
“The risks associated with a judicial error in discouraging regulation of firearms carried in public are too great,” Walls concluded.
without any evidence that it is so. In the 40+ states that have shall issue permits, there is no evidence to support what he says, and considerable evidence to conclude otherwise. Here is the question on the poll and the responses:
Should N.J. gun owners be allowed to carry in public without having to show urgent need?
Yes. 82.06% 4,168
No. 17.44% 886
I don’t know. .49% 25
Here is the link to the poll.
One of the commenters at the article makes an interesting point. They say that NJ.com has run this poll before, and always comes up with over 80% in favor of Second Amendment rights. It falls in the range of what is commonly seen. Of those who care enough to answer an online poll, Second Amendment supporters are between three and ten times as numerous as Second Amendment detractors.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
4 thoughts on “NJ Poll: Should people in New Jersey Have the Right to be Armed in Public?”
What good is a gun locked up in a house when you’re out in public and become endangered by a person seeking to do you harm? I’ve never understood the concept of punishing the innocent for the crimes of others. In the end though, it does come down to our rights which are clearly listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Exactly. I often find myself asking that same question. Why do people hide their guns and lock them away in their house rather than carry them with them at all times? Why do they allow the government to restrict them or make them feel ashamed to carry in public? It defeats the purpose of protection!
Weingarten wisely points out Walls’ “comment” within the decision;
to wit: “The risks associated with a judicial error in discouraging regulation of firearms carried in public are too great,”
This is known as judicial dicta – wherein, a judge (within an opinion) strays from “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law” to add (usually and mostly) unmitigated bullsh*t into their decision.
It’s been happening for years – The un-punished audacity of such behavior is the major reason our judiciary is doomed to failure in its PRIMARY job of protecting our Constitution.
Treason was supposed to have only one punishment – and I’m starting to understand why that was so.