NJ Mom forced to turn over guns and charged for peaceful protest

[Avatar4321]

Reading the constitution = Terrorist threats

Welcome to Obama's America!

Reading the Constitution then making threats is terroristic. Even Glenn Beck acknowledge that today.

If anyone was making it threats, it was the person who had her arrested and told her she would pay for speaking out.

 

[Avatar4321]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

It's funny how I can only find this story from conservative blogs and news sources. I have not been able to find even a local news source that covered this story. Secondly, there is no evidence other than her word that she did not make the threat to come back with a gun. I'm not saying the story does not have merit or may not be true, but a news source other than a conservative blog would be helpful.

LMAO! Yes, but neocon blogs are the journalism du jour for the righties on this board. I'm surprised that Siddhartha here didn't have a better source.

Just because you don't like the news, doesn't make it any less the news.

 

[Avatar4321]

From New Jersey Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - NJ.com

"A Franklin Township woman was arrested over the weekend after allegedly making threats about bringing a gun to a Gloucester County building, where she was attending a public meeting on tax revaluation. She later handed two guns over to police for safekeeping.""
............
""Hart said she was told while she was in custody that she would have to hand over her two guns, a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a .40-caliber Glock, for safekeeping in order to keep a judge from setting bail too high for her family to pay. She owns both guns legally and shoots regularly at a local range. Now, she feels that her Second Amendment rights have been violated.""

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after gun threats at tax meeting | NJ.com

I suspect the Sandy Hook thing has made everybody up here just a little more nervous than usual.

Thank you for establishing that I wasn't lying or misleading anyone. I highly doubt CCJ will acknowledge that he was wrong though.

 

[Avatar4321]

Police did the right thing.

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

No. Im sorry. You don't arrest someone for speaking out against a government official in a public meeting.

 

[bodecea]

Police did the right thing.

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

No. Im sorry. You don't arrest someone for speaking out against a government official in a public meeting.

If you threaten them with a gun, you do. But this sounds like a "he said, she said" thing. If there ends up being no evidence she threatened to bring a gun, her guns SHOULD be returned post haste.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

It's funny how I can only find this story from conservative blogs and news sources. I have not been able to find even a local news source that covered this story. Secondly, there is no evidence other than her word that she did not make the threat to come back with a gun. I'm not saying the story does not have merit or may not be true, but a news source other than a conservative blog would be helpful. It would be interesting to see how this turns out also. If she did make the threat, there are probably plenty of witnesses and it was probably also recorded. So if she didn't make the threat, she probably has a case for a civil suit against a lot of people and the police department.

Keep us posted on how this turns out.

Try this one: N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after alleged gun threats at tax meeting | NJ.com

Again, there’s nothing in the article about guns being ‘confiscated’:

Hart said she was told while she was in custody that she would have to hand over her two guns, a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a .40-caliber Glock, for safekeeping in order to keep a judge from setting bail too high for her family to pay.

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

“Hart said she was told…”

By whom? Where’s the statement from the police confirming this?

“…while she was in custody…”

Now she’s no longer in custody, as we see per the next paragraph. And if not in custody then her firearms must have been returned.

What evidence is there that the police still have the firearms, if any?

“She later handed two guns over to police for safekeeping.”

Voluntarily? Or while she’s in custody? If she surrendered the guns of her own volition, then nothing was ‘confiscated.’

The problem with this ‘story’ is we’re not getting the full story, there are far too many conflicts, contradictions, and missing information. And what information is provided is not from verified sources.

This is likely by design, allowing the right to distort, spin, and lie to advance their inane myth of ‘gun grabbing’ government.

 

[Amelia]

As an Orthodox Jew, she refused to have the inspectors in her home when her husband was away at work.

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, the state has a right to “assume” its value.

if being an Orthodox Jew was the reason she gave for not allowing the inspection then she should be willing to accept the consequences - or like everyone else let them do their job, then protest if she feels aggrieved by a properly obtained assessment - rather than protesting against one that was obtained because of her own actions.

Orthodox Jews should have to accept arbitrary doubling of their taxes?

What about the assessor making reasonable accommodations so as not to be in violation of the woman's faith?

 

[OKTexas]

As an Orthodox Jew, she refused to have the inspectors in her home when her husband was away at work.

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, the state has a right to “assume” its value.

if being an Orthodox Jew was the reason she gave for not allowing the inspection then she should be willing to accept the consequences - or like everyone else let them do their job, then protest if she feels aggrieved by a properly obtained assessment - rather than protesting against one that was obtained because of her own actions.

Orthodox Jews should have to accept arbitrary doubling of their taxes?

What about the assessor making reasonable accommodations so as not to be in violation of the woman's faith?

A bureaucrat make a religious accommodation, are you serious, where do you think this is, Iran?


(sarcasm)

 

[Politico]

Another fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Police did the right thing.

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

No. Im sorry. You don't arrest someone for speaking out against a government official in a public meeting.

If you threaten them with a gun, you do. But this sounds like a "he said, she said" thing. If there ends up being no evidence she threatened to bring a gun, her guns SHOULD be returned post haste.

Actually, you don't, unless you can provide some sort of evidence that the person actually intends to carry out the threat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how I can only find this story from conservative blogs and news sources. I have not been able to find even a local news source that covered this story. Secondly, there is no evidence other than her word that she did not make the threat to come back with a gun. I'm not saying the story does not have merit or may not be true, but a news source other than a conservative blog would be helpful. It would be interesting to see how this turns out also. If she did make the threat, there are probably plenty of witnesses and it was probably also recorded. So if she didn't make the threat, she probably has a case for a civil suit against a lot of people and the police department.

Keep us posted on how this turns out.

Try this one: N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after alleged gun threats at tax meeting | NJ.com

Again, there’s nothing in the article about guns being ‘confiscated’:

Hart said she was told while she was in custody that she would have to hand over her two guns, a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a .40-caliber Glock, for safekeeping in order to keep a judge from setting bail too high for her family to pay.

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

“Hart said she was told…”

By whom? Where’s the statement from the police confirming this?

“…while she was in custody…”

Now she’s no longer in custody, as we see per the next paragraph. And if not in custody then her firearms must have been returned.

What evidence is there that the police still have the firearms, if any?

“She later handed two guns over to police for safekeeping.”

Voluntarily? Or while she’s in custody? If she surrendered the guns of her own volition, then nothing was ‘confiscated.’

The problem with this ‘story’ is we’re not getting the full story, there are far too many conflicts, contradictions, and missing information. And what information is provided is not from verified sources.

This is likely by design, allowing the right to distort, spin, and lie to advance their inane myth of ‘gun grabbing’ government.

Your logic seems to be based on the assumption that you cannot make a mistake. She was told that she had to surrender her weapons to face a restrictive bail. Since the courts have repeatedly ruled that cops lying to people is not a problem, I see no reason to assume that she was not told this, even if you can provide absolute evidence that gun ownership is not a factor in setting bail. Given that this is New Jersey, and given the strict gun laws there, I doubt you can provide evidence that that is true, even if we forget the fact that she is allegedly threatened someone.

The fact that she was released on her own recognizance does not provide evidence that her guns were returned in any way, shape, or form, all it proves is that she was released, and that she has to go back to court. Is it voluntary when the court orders you to do something?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Police did the right thing.

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

No. Im sorry. You don't arrest someone for speaking out against a government official in a public meeting.

If you threaten them with a gun, you do. But this sounds like a "he said, she said" thing. If there ends up being no evidence she threatened to bring a gun, her guns SHOULD be returned post haste.

The presence of a gun at times can be intimidating. No one in our communities were ever permitted to intimidate in speech and action in such a manner. Never. If the DA cannot prove such was the case, then the weapon(s) should be returned immediately.

 

[martybegan]

So a complainant said she threatened to come back with a gun. Thats a verbal "simple assault" in my state. In others it is called "terroristic threat", and has been long before 9-11. Gotta remind right wingers that "terroristic" means simply some sort of verbal threat, nothing to do with Muslims or the Constitution.

So, the complainant says she mad the threat. She says she didnt. So, the police respond to the call, do their job, process the complaint, she is released immediately on a PR, and she will get her due process date in court with a judge who will determine the case. The cops advise here that, as normal, the judge will determine the threat potential during bond considerations- like they do with all cases. And since this involved the complaint of a threat with a gun, that she could help her chances of a light bond or PR bond by allowing her gun to be secured with the PD until her hearing.

Am I missing something? This sounds exactly like how our system of checks and balances, and due process, and the court system and police powers work. They even helped her by suggesting how she could help get a lighter bond. And in fact, she got the lightest possible bond, an immediate PR.

Maybe I missed the part to be outraged about? Unless threatening to come back to a public meeting with a firearm to influence change in decision making is now OK? So you say she didnt do it (according to her)? Well, others say she did. And thats why we have a court system.

So, now that she has been disarmed, I have to assume the Police department will provide 24-7 security to protect her while her "due process" plays out in courts.

Now that everyone knows she is disarmed, does that not increase her vulnerability? Shouldnt the police and the courts, who took away her 2nd amendment rights without any conviction whatsover, now be responsible for her safety and her families safety?

 

[JakeStarkey]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

 

[martybegan]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

So voicing your opinion is "acting the idiot"

I guess we all gotta suck up to big massa govmint if we's wants to keep our rights...

 

[JakeStarkey]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

So voicing your opinion is "acting the idiot"

I guess we all gotta suck up to big massa govmint if we's wants to keep our rights...

"voicing your opinion" while threatening to bring a gun is idiotic.

If you or she done it in my meeting, you would have gone to jail that night, not home.

You don't get to threaten.

 

[martybegan]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

So voicing your opinion is "acting the idiot"

I guess we all gotta suck up to big massa govmint if we's wants to keep our rights...

"voicing your opinion" while threatening to bring a gun is idiotic.

If you or she done it in my meeting, you would have gone to jail that night, not home.

You don't get to threaten.

So far no one else has come forward saying she said that?

And as for your 2nd statement, awww, are scawed of a small jewish lady???

Big man, you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So voicing your opinion is "acting the idiot"

I guess we all gotta suck up to big massa govmint if we's wants to keep our rights...

"voicing your opinion" while threatening to bring a gun is idiotic.

If you or she done it in my meeting, you would have gone to jail that night, not home.

You don't get to threaten.

So far no one else has come forward saying she said that?

And as for your 2nd statement, awww, are scawed of a small jewish lady???

Big man, you.

Actually they did say she said that. Not afraid of anyone, that is what the law is for, to keep down the creep. Like you.

 

[martybegan]

"voicing your opinion" while threatening to bring a gun is idiotic.

If you or she done it in my meeting, you would have gone to jail that night, not home.

You don't get to threaten.

So far no one else has come forward saying she said that?

And as for your 2nd statement, awww, are scawed of a small jewish lady???

Big man, you.

Actually they did say she said that. Not afraid of anyone, that is what the law is for, to keep down the creep. Like you.

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after alleged gun threats at tax meeting | NJ.com

From a non "RW wacko" site. The only person who according to this said "gun" was from the assesor company in question.

"its not "they" its "he" one person. Notice the state people not backing up the assesor's claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

notice you don't know, don't have an actual clue, what you are talking about, marty.