It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NJ Mom Arrested and Guns Confiscated After Speaking Out at Public Meeting
page: 2share:
Did she go armed with the Constitution only ?
Weren't her guns at home ?
Weren't her guns at home ?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Hmmm... Her cause may be right but two big things stand out. She went to a County/Government complex ( County Center or Community Center ) for a meeting with a gun. Now I checked to be sure...and New Jersey is among the most unforgiving and strict in the United States on carrying a gun in any form.
(Source: New Jersey Fireams Law Summary / NRA )
CARRYING
It is unlawful to knowingly have in your possession a: Handgun, including any antique handgun, without first obtaining a Permit to Carry. No distinction is drawn between carrying openly or concealed. Rifle or shotgun without first obtaining a FID card. It is Illegal to carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in any vehicle, or to shoot from any vehicle or across any road.
Someone knew she had a gun. How did ANYONE ever know she had a gun? Even if permitted, concealed means concealed and I am at a loss for how attending armed ever comes into it ...unless violating that local/state law in belief a copy of the Constitution would make a difference was the point?
*Just an FYI, but despite how open and accommodating Missouri is for firearms, I think I'd go to jail too if I attended a community meeting at anything like State/local/city property while carrying my gun and someone noticed. That's not a 'no gun sign' issue that can be ignored until asked to leave. Thats black letter law on those places.......
edit on 11-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Did you even read the article? Of course not.
She was arrested, and when they booked her, the police realized she had NO criminal record, but it also revealed that she legally owned two guns.
They then told her it's best to surrender them or "Your bail will be extremely high, and if you can't post bail, you'll sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time."
All though, there should be no bail required, because she was arrested based on an "Allegation" with no proof of a crime taking place. She also has no priors, so she should have been ROR'd.
And actually, she should have never been arrested at all. This is state enforced muscle.
The sad part is, it took you longer to source carry laws for jersey than it would have for you to read the article.
The sadder part is you got two stars even though she DID NOT carry a gun.
edit on 11-3-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)
The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun."
From the source provided in the OP.
If she did say that... then she's an idiot and deserves what she gets.
reply to post by TheWrightWing
Actually if you were getting 80 + billions a month for the last year from the Federla Reserve (QEs) to keep the too big from fail, I am sure you will be also doing great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, you are right that is why the Wall Street mobsters are getting profits.
Thanks for bringing the issue always a pleasure to meet somebody that knows what he is taking about
Is only going to get worst when the fed can not longer dip in the Treasury for more money printing and debt buying.
Actually if you were getting 80 + billions a month for the last year from the Federla Reserve (QEs) to keep the too big from fail, I am sure you will be also doing great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, you are right that is why the Wall Street mobsters are getting profits.
Thanks for bringing the issue always a pleasure to meet somebody that knows what he is taking about
Is only going to get worst when the fed can not longer dip in the Treasury for more money printing and debt buying.
Originally posted by elevatedone
The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun."
From the source provided in the OP.
If she did say that... then she's an idiot and deserves what she gets.
That's not from the source at all. That's a random comment at the bottom of the page. Posted by "Ganesha_akbar."
Ganesha_akbar • 4 hours ago
The complaint (in part) states:
The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun."
Ms. Hart denies she ever made this statement, as does her husband, Keith. However, this is how the complaint was written up by Clayton County Sergeant J. Dick- who, it may be noted, was not present during the meeting.
There is the whole quote. It also says the complaint was written by a man who was Absent from the meeting.
I.E.
It's very likely that complaint was only written after she was booked... [after they background checked her and saw she owned two firearms legally.]
[SNIP
Mod edit: Personal comments removed. Stick to the topic- not fellow members.
edit on 3/11/2013 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Laykilla
Eh... click the little part at the bottom of the article that says "read the rest here".
After you click that.... then read the rest of the article...
Thank you, have a nice day.
Eh... click the little part at the bottom of the article that says "read the rest here".
After you click that.... then read the rest of the article...
Thank you, have a nice day.
reply to post by elevatedone
There is enough information in the story to make a decision one way or the other.
I find it very hard to believe her husband did not get in the face of the young man shouting at his wife.
There is enough information in the story to make a decision one way or the other.
I find it very hard to believe her husband did not get in the face of the young man shouting at his wife.
reply to post by KoolerKing
Yeah, Absolutely.... I agree, however, ya don't threaten to "come back with a gun",
in this day and age, you're only asking for trouble.
Yeah, Absolutely.... I agree, however, ya don't threaten to "come back with a gun",
in this day and age, you're only asking for trouble.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
i saw in the article she was armed with the constitution and facts not an actual weapon at least not in the meeting....still not seeing how they can justify taking her weapons unless she made actual threats.....only mention of gun in the article other then her getting hers taken was her statement
ah found out what problay got her guns taken away
www.njlaws.com... www.judiciary.state.nj.us... few links on contempt charges for new jersy still not getting this one perse....www.nj.com... ah i guess even having a warrent counts as contempt in new jersy
this might be the thing that saves her butt from the inspections
Ms. Hart tried to explain, that Appraisal Systems, Inc. was attempting to inspect her property without her husband being present. As an Orthodox Jew, this is against the tenets of her religion. Her husband had to be present. According to Ms. Hart, she was unable to express this concern
i saw in the article she was armed with the constitution and facts not an actual weapon at least not in the meeting....still not seeing how they can justify taking her weapons unless she made actual threats.....only mention of gun in the article other then her getting hers taken was her statement
www.examiner.com...
Relates Hart: "She also wouldn't let me speak and told me to sit down and shut up and listen as well. That's when the young man came toward me. I knew he was going to put his hands on me. I saw him out of the corner of my eye. I said to him "Don't you dare touch me." Then they threw us out of the auditorium. The young man from Appraisal Systems, Inc. was the one going postal, and I believe if HE HAD A GUN, he would have shot me, Keith and Khloe on the spot. I was calm the entire time."
ah found out what problay got her guns taken away
She was arrested and booked for "terroristic threats" and "contempt." At the police station, she was handcuffed to a chair. The cops ran a background check- and it revealed that she had absolutely NO criminal record. It also showed that she was the lawful owner of two hand guns. She was advised to turn in the guns over to the court (surrendered or confiscated) - and they would be held for "safe keeping." If she did not- she was told by the police- her bail would be VERY high. And- if she could not make the bail- she would sit in the county jail until an unknown date. The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun."
www.njlaws.com... www.judiciary.state.nj.us... few links on contempt charges for new jersy still not getting this one perse....www.nj.com... ah i guess even having a warrent counts as contempt in new jersy
edit on 11-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
reply to post by TheWrightWing
Sad, isn't it.
Here's a thread I started a while back devoted to just that subject:
"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by this_is_who_we_are
started 11/27/2010 @ 01:40 AM
I linked the OP's thread in my thread.
The end is near you know.
Sad, isn't it.
Here's a thread I started a while back devoted to just that subject:
"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by this_is_who_we_are
started 11/27/2010 @ 01:40 AM
I linked the OP's thread in my thread.
The end is near you know.
edit on 3/11/2013 by this_is_who_we_are because: typos
I'm confused by this part.
Is there some sort of gun registry in NJ?
ETA: If so, this seems like a perfect reason as to why there shouldn't be one.
The cops ran a background check- and it revealed that she had absolutely NO criminal record. It also showed that she was the lawful owner of two hand guns.
Is there some sort of gun registry in NJ?
ETA: If so, this seems like a perfect reason as to why there shouldn't be one.
edit on 11-3-2013 by 311DTOM because:
I found the following part of the story somewhat... odd... and somewhat... flawed...
SOURCE
Law Enforcement personnel are sworn, and employed by the government. Now, true enough, there are some private Law Enforcement out there working for private companies rather than the government, but they are STILL sworn, and have a severely curtailed jurisdiction (generally limited to the premesis of their employer - in the case of their employer being the government, that would be the building and grounds, and end at the sidewalk).
SO - were any of these folks whose "job is to enforce the law" show up at my doorstep, they'd better be uniformed, armed, in possession of government credentials, and riding in a squad car. Otherwise, they can expect the same treatment as any other common trespasser. I'll make an exception and modification for some detectives, who don't go uniformed, but they'd better be holding a badge and ID card somewhere on their person, and be prepared to show it.
"Tax assessors" working for a private company? Not so much. They'd better keep moving, and send out a REAL tax assessor instead, with some government credentials. I value my privacy, and don't have much use for or patience with trespassers.
A representative of Appraisal Systems, Inc. - ( < List of Appraisal System Employees at this link) apparently took offense to her objections and brought in Robyn Glocker-Hammond, the Tax Assessor - who stated that her job was to "enforce the law."
SOURCE
Law Enforcement personnel are sworn, and employed by the government. Now, true enough, there are some private Law Enforcement out there working for private companies rather than the government, but they are STILL sworn, and have a severely curtailed jurisdiction (generally limited to the premesis of their employer - in the case of their employer being the government, that would be the building and grounds, and end at the sidewalk).
SO - were any of these folks whose "job is to enforce the law" show up at my doorstep, they'd better be uniformed, armed, in possession of government credentials, and riding in a squad car. Otherwise, they can expect the same treatment as any other common trespasser. I'll make an exception and modification for some detectives, who don't go uniformed, but they'd better be holding a badge and ID card somewhere on their person, and be prepared to show it.
"Tax assessors" working for a private company? Not so much. They'd better keep moving, and send out a REAL tax assessor instead, with some government credentials. I value my privacy, and don't have much use for or patience with trespassers.
edit on 2013/3/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
Pretty jacked up if this is 100% true. But it seems most females don't own guns, so why would the guy say she threatend them with one and then she in
turn does own them? Would have to hear from other witness there to make a definitive decision on what was said. But if she never said that then she
should not worry about her taxes and home anymore cause she will get rich off of them now.
Gs
Gs
Wow, could that story get any more biased and ONE SIDED? I wonder what REALLY happened.
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
Sounds like there is definitely more to this. The more I've thought about this, the odder it is that there would be so many cops sitting at her house, waiting on her and in the time it took her to get from one place to the other wasn't it?
They didn't go out in that show of force on a soccer mom because she said something unpopular. Perhaps it turns out to be a maliciously false report, but it sounds like the cops were definitely acting on the idea that she'd threatened someone?
Sounds like there is definitely more to this. The more I've thought about this, the odder it is that there would be so many cops sitting at her house, waiting on her and in the time it took her to get from one place to the other wasn't it?
They didn't go out in that show of force on a soccer mom because she said something unpopular. Perhaps it turns out to be a maliciously false report, but it sounds like the cops were definitely acting on the idea that she'd threatened someone?
Originally posted by SweetChild
Wow, could that story get any more biased and ONE SIDED? I wonder what REALLY happened.
Exactly.
The source for this thread isnt a news item, but a blog which specifically chose to NOT include any reference to the offence she had committed.
...that the Clayton Police wanted to talk to her about the allegations.
...both the police officers DID acknowledge that it was “an allegation.”
And nobody has asked yet what the allegations were?
Everybody is so kneejerk outraged that they didnt notice allegations were made BY THE MOM and the article never stated what they were at any time?
ATS readers are soooo easily led, they might as well have a ring in their nose.
ATS readers are soooo easily led, they might as well have a ring in their nose.
Agreed. For people who pride themselves on seeing through MSM, they sure are eager to be misled as long as it fits their narrow worldview.
Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by KoolerKing
Yeah, Absolutely.... I agree, however, ya don't threaten to "come back with a gun",
in this day and age, you're only asking for trouble.
Yep...... it would be wise when talking, arguing or having any confrontation where witnesses are around, to say nothing that could be even construed as a threat, even 'reading between the lines'. And yea, I read the article, but it seemed short, too short to draw a conclusion.
In the future, your replies on forums, or anything in correspondence anywhere that is in print or audio, could be used AGAINST you. Be more clever than to fall into that trap.
Except from the information given so far, they targetted her for speaking up, and the only statement of a threat to come back with a gun was made by
someone not there even, so it looks like they can do anything they want, set up anything they want, and laugh at us.
I don't believe in being extra careful to not fall into traps. I believe in the employer group making very very clear the message to the employees that their time is limited, they're fired, and explaining what their job description is and what citizens expect in their country with their tax dollars, its a giant boomerang that had better be showing up in their communities, ie no homeless, low cost of living, homes for everyone, and great education and grass roots businesses, true free enterprise, and curtails on monopolies.
And then flex citizen muscles by becoming the grass roots first level of government in their communities, and begin to solve problems, do away with local ordinances that restrict property uses, and stop land from being shared, and donate land for homeless, get grass roots home based businesses going, share them with the poor, handicapped and elderly, basically get some of the solutions, going. Treat whole city blocks like a big eco farm with aquaponics and deliver weekly food to shut ins.
Boot out the current council elect your own and then set your eyes for the national seats. Who would elect 3 or so of their offerings? Not me. I don't vote for their offerings. I will elect a real person.
We're supposed to be growing up and solving problems.
If we were doing that, (and in a democracy, representative kind, or proportional like Norway, any kind of democracy, this is how you watch dog it and I am shocked out of my tree all my life, that this wasn't the norm in every community, its just common sense!!!!)
So, this issue is injustice. They fired the cannon of their corrupt in justice at her.
But we're the ones allowing this system, when we don't have to, never did.
I don't believe in being extra careful to not fall into traps. I believe in the employer group making very very clear the message to the employees that their time is limited, they're fired, and explaining what their job description is and what citizens expect in their country with their tax dollars, its a giant boomerang that had better be showing up in their communities, ie no homeless, low cost of living, homes for everyone, and great education and grass roots businesses, true free enterprise, and curtails on monopolies.
And then flex citizen muscles by becoming the grass roots first level of government in their communities, and begin to solve problems, do away with local ordinances that restrict property uses, and stop land from being shared, and donate land for homeless, get grass roots home based businesses going, share them with the poor, handicapped and elderly, basically get some of the solutions, going. Treat whole city blocks like a big eco farm with aquaponics and deliver weekly food to shut ins.
Boot out the current council elect your own and then set your eyes for the national seats. Who would elect 3 or so of their offerings? Not me. I don't vote for their offerings. I will elect a real person.
We're supposed to be growing up and solving problems.
If we were doing that, (and in a democracy, representative kind, or proportional like Norway, any kind of democracy, this is how you watch dog it and I am shocked out of my tree all my life, that this wasn't the norm in every community, its just common sense!!!!)
So, this issue is injustice. They fired the cannon of their corrupt in justice at her.
But we're the ones allowing this system, when we don't have to, never did.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
If this story were the only example out there, I'd question it.
But as it is joining a very long list of grievances and rights that have been squired away from us in the last ten years, it is entirely believable.
This sort of thing goes on everyday now in America.
It is horrifying to us baby boomers...and even more...it is sad.
But as it is joining a very long list of grievances and rights that have been squired away from us in the last ten years, it is entirely believable.
This sort of thing goes on everyday now in America.
It is horrifying to us baby boomers...and even more...it is sad.