TexasCHLforum.com

Civil Disobedience, Jersey Style.

During NJ Senate hearings, they shut one gun activist up and ejected him.

The angry audience response was to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-ama ... es-pledge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder what happened before the posted video was started? Did the chairman quash an open public forum or was he simply trying to properly begin a meeting of public officials? My thinking is that it was the latter and the guy was totally out of order and should have been ejected.

scottmeador wrote:I wonder what happened before the posted video was started?.......

That video is below.

If you’ve seen the video we posted earlier today, then you definitely want to check this one out. There was some question that when Second Amendment activist, James Kaleda, was removed from the hearing if the audience was clapping for him or for his removal. I think this video, which took place immediately following that, should clear things up.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-wel ... testimony/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

I guess it is required to chew gum in uniform if you are a NJ State Trooper. BOTH were chewing.

And the "leader" who kept declaring people out of order never stood up for the pledge.

scottmeador wrote:I wonder what happened before the posted video was started? Did the chairman quash an open public forum or was he simply trying to properly begin a meeting of public officials? My thinking is that it was the latter and the guy was totally out of order and should have been ejected.

You have to read the comment on YouTube.

" Published on May 8, 2013
After a late start, and a "ten minute break" that lasted more than a half hour, the NJ Senate committee on gun control decides to cut off public comment on the proposed gun control bills at 4 o'clock. The chairman and most of the committee then refuse to honor the pledge of allegiance. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013."

Looks like something you would have expected in Germany in the late 30's.

jmra wrote:Looks like something you would have expected in Germany in the late 30's.

Except the Sturmabteilung wore brown shirts.

What a disgusting, repulsive display by those members on the panel.

Totally smug and full of elitism. They think they are better than the people who put them there.

While I totally sympathize with his message and agree with what he was saying, it seems to me the rules should be the same no matter what the topic is. Public meetings have rules and forms they follow and as long as they didn't change them for this speaker I'm a bit of a loss for any real outrage about the manner in which he was treated. The speaker understandable got a bit emotional about the subject and, in the opinion of the chair, got a bit off topic then refused to get back on topic deciding it was better to tell the chair "what he was going to do". Now if you wish to make a demonstration of emotion or resolve, then fine it's a viable tactic, but you can't go in front of any formal meeting and start telling the chair what you are going to do without expecting to get thrown out. You could be speaking about leash law and acting like that will get you thrown out. You don't do that because you are trying to speak you do it to get thrown out to try and make a point. The speaker got what he wanted and showed his commitment to his cause but why should anyone be upset or surprised that he was asked to leave?

EEllis wrote:While I totally sympathize with his message and agree with what he was saying, it seems to me the rules should be the same no matter what the topic is. Public meetings have rules and forms they follow and as long as they didn't change them for this speaker I'm a bit of a loss for any real outrage about the manner in which he was treated. The speaker understandable got a bit emotional about the subject and, in the opinion of the chair, got a bit off topic then refused to get back on topic deciding it was better to tell the chair "what he was going to do". Now if you wish to make a demonstration of emotion or resolve, then fine it's a viable tactic, but you can't go in front of any formal meeting and start telling the chair what you are going to do without expecting to get thrown out. You could be speaking about leash law and acting like that will get you thrown out. You don't do that because you are trying to speak you do it to get thrown out to try and make a point. The speaker got what he wanted and showed his commitment to his cause but why should anyone be upset or surprised that he was asked to leave?

Part of the problem, and you can hear it in the background, is that a portion of the committee was totally ignoring him and carrying on their own sidebar, apparently including the chair, and this understandably made him raise his voice to try to get their attention. He did get their attention and as soon as the chair realized he had raised his voice he declared him out of order. This is a common tactic among committees that have their minds made up already and don't feel like paying attention to the unwashed masses in front of them, to them the hearing is nothing more than a formality.

I have seen State Senator Tarky Lombardi (R-Syracuse, but R- in name only) use this tactic many times, and even heard him describing it, as well as his contention that the hearings were "useless time wasters" that should be removed from the rules. One time he walked into a meeting room and everyone, committee members and audience alike, continued to talk while they waited for him to call the meeting to order. He tapped his water glass on the desk, said, in a low voice, that the committee was now in session, tapped again and asked if there was anyone with business before the committee (or the formal phrase to that effect asking for witnesses) and then, before anyone had a chance to respond, declared that "Hearing none, the chair closes the public comment portion of this hearing." and went on to other business. When an outcry began, he had the Sergeant at Arms clear the gallery.

I heard this all clearly because, as a telephone man in the capital and legislature, I had an extension off the senate intercomm in the telephone room in the basement of the building and being interested in the bill, I was listening while I was doing desk work. Even in the 70s the NY State Legislature was recording their sessions.