CHEESEMAN SOUNDS OFF ON NJ's RED FLAG LAW!
DELIBERATE, SEVERE, CALCULATED ATTACK ON GUNS!
by Mark Cheeseman for Black Wire Media Monday 11-25-19 www.cnjfo.com/join-us
New Jersey's Extreme Risk Protection Act would appear to be one of the most severe and calculating versions of the law in the nation. In a very short time period, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of N.J. executed and put into effect this law. The one common and repeated part of the law and directives is REMOVAL of firearms. If we examine the law closer, we find the fundamental flaws.
1) No due process. The 5th amendment states that no one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
2) Presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of our justice system. It is the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet if we read the guidelines submitted below, we find our Second Amendment rights violated first.
3) Property being confiscated without compensation; a firearm in its most basic form is property. So we also see our 14th Amendment rights violated.
4) And of course, our Second Amendment rights BLATANTLY violated.
Evidence and lack thereof. Hearsay. From Directive # 19-19:
"Evidence. In determining whether to issue a temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order, the Court may examine under oath the Petitioner and any witnesses the Petitioner may produce. The court may consider the sworn oral testimony of a Petitioner or witness who, although not physically present in court, identifies himself or herself, specifies the purpose of the request and discloses the basis of the petition".
This is an example of why this law is dangerous and flawed. A spouse, ex-spouse, family member (other persons) may petition the court for a very wide and broad set of allegations of wrongdoing, based on FEELINGS & EMOTIONS that may not be accurate or even TRUTHFUL!
What we have is a perfect example of "He said / She said" being used as a vehicle to STRIP one of their Second Amendment rights. ANY WITNESS THE PETITONER MAY PRODUCE is allowed to testify. And they DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN COURT TO ACCUSE YOU!
Does your neighbor HATE YOU because your dog craps in their yard? Your kids play the stereo too loud? The vehicles from your growing family take up too many parking spots on the street? Does this neighbor know you have guns? Had he or she witnessed you loading gun cases in a vehicle? A RED FLAG, sworn-out against you WITHOUT the need for PROOF and WITHOUT any REPERCUSSIONS on the Petitioner would "solve a multitude of sins"!
THE TIMELINE OF OUR RIGHTS BEING ERODED:
Extreme Risk Protection Act for New Jersey. ERPO. FAST TRACKED. On 1/9/19 the Extreme Risk Protection Act is introduced into Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee, where most of NJ's unconstitutional laws emerge.
On 6/7/19 both Assembly and Senate vote the bill into law.
On 7/15/19 Attorney General of N.J releases Directive 2019-2 ERPO: https://www.nj.gov/…/newsrelease…/Extreme-Risk_Directive.pdf
On 7/12/19 Glenn A Grant Administrative Director of the Courts releases directives/guidelines to all Assignment Judges and criminal court Judges. Directive #19-19
https://njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190813a.pdf
In closing it becomes apparent the Bill, law and guidelines were all written for one purpose: CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS! Why do I say that? The Bill, the law and each directive all point to removal of firearms under a very broad and UNCONSTITUTIONAL set of guidelines. We can also see this whole scheme was put into effect very quickly, and frankly, very irresponsibly. The only recourse we have is to get this law into court and struck down as bad law. Are we supposed to stick our heads in the sand? Absolutely not!
I believe we need to be cautious and continue as we would normally. I believe we have the right to express ourselves as law-abiding citizens who will NOT BE INTIMIDATED by fear of speaking our minds and exercising our RIGHTS. I believe we should CHALLENGE the Courts and support those who are challenging the Courts. I believe we need to have each other’s back and offer whatever support we see fit.
EDITOR's NOTE:
Mark Cheeseman, the Petitioner in Cheeseman vs. John Polillo, Chief of Police of Glassboro, NJ, case No. 19-27, is currently seeking CERT (still ON-HOLD(?) pending outcome of NYSR&P case already granted CERT) before the Supreme Court of these United States.
Cheeseman, together with Historian Jay Factor & attorney David Jensen, have undertaken the huge task of expanding weapons carry in Heller to include venues OUTSIDE the home being a constitutionally protected RIGHT! Several years of ongoing lower court battles have brought us to the precipice of getting our rights restored since the scourge of NJ's #JustifiableNeed was forced down our throats. Both Cheeseman and Factor attended last summer's Sporting Clays match held as a fundraiser in their honor. We all yearn for SCOTUS to VOTE 5 Black Robes to NJ CARRY!
