Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3786 posts, RR: 24 Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Oddly enough I saw this on the IAH Spotters site yet nothing here (unless I did not go far enough back in my search for this story here). While it only effects NJ, it could have a domino effect on to other states, who might enact similar legislation.
Let's not make a blanket statement about a given country because a couple of legislators are on a power trip. Hopefully the good people of NJ will bombard their local state representatives in Trenton with with e-mails, letters, phone calls, ect.... opposing this proposed bill.
Quoting Ryan h (Reply 3): In my opinion this is a typical American knee jerk reaction. Americans have to learn to use their brains.
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2133 times:
This sounds like a nightmare for all spotters & journalists. I'm not an expert on the U.S. Constitution, but doesn't the 1st amendment grant the right to assemble peacefully & freedom of the press? Could this apply here if the bill is challenged in court?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2079 times:
Quoting TS (Reply 8): doesn't the 1st amendment grant the right to assemble peacefully & freedom of the press?
No. The first amendment protects an action only if it is "expressive" and even then only in limited ways. (Burning a draft card, for example, while clearly expressing a dissatisfaction with the war was still illegal under the first amendment when Congress banned the mutilation of draft cards - the dude was still allowed to stand on a podium and SAY "this war is bad.")
The problem here is that NJ is banning an action, not an expression. Don't worry, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking about ways to attack the constitutionality of this law.
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
Quoting Ryan h (Reply 3): In my opinion this is a typical Americanrnknee jerk reaction. Americans have to learn to use their brains.
Without commenting on whether or not I think the proposed legislation is a good idea, let me make several points;
1. This action is be proposed almost 5 years after 9/11. I would hardly call that knee jerk.
2. With regards to our American brains, if I merely use the various winning Nobel Prize categoriesrnover the last 100 years as a simple measurement, the US 100+ to the Australian 7 gives a telling indication of our "brain ability".
3. I daresay that if your Harbor Bridge and/or Opera House had been removed by terrorist actions, there may be a different thought process down under right now.
In any case, we can argue left and right about rights and freedoms, etc, but unless you have been an elected official and have felt the weight of responsibility of protecting the people as a whole, I don't think you can entirely understand why a politician would propose something like this. Just looking at the second guessing that is still occurring in London over the train bombings (todays news) is a good indication as to why these kinds of proposals will continue to surface. No politician or civil servant wants to be the face on the front of tomorrows paper with the question of "Why didn't they protect us?" below it.
Bottom line; let's not allow this to get into a country bashing rant. It doesn't accomplish anything, and the issues being discussed are well beyond individual country borders.
PHL27RPhotog From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 77 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Good news for now, thanks to news media and other groups complaining the New Jersey legislature shelved the bill. That likely means it's dead. Looks like it's safe to keep shooting in NJ (Like you can shoot at EWR and TEB without hassle anyway).