Dec
31
2013

Chris Christie declines to defend draconian state gun laws in court.

What’s good for the jackass is good for the elephant:

Governor Christie’s administration did not defend one of the state’s stringent gun laws in a case where two retired arson investigators challenged rules over who can carry a concealed weapon, according to an appeals court decision released Monday.

The attorney general who made that decision, Jeffrey Chiesa, is one of Christie’s closest advisers and left that law enforcement job when the governor named him to a temporary post in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. He notified the court that the state would not be appealing a trial court decision in papers filed a month before the Newtown, Conn., school shooting last year that prompted a push for gun restrictions including a ban on high-caliber assault weapons in New Jersey.

In Monday’s ruling, a state appeals court upheld restrictions on gun carry permits, and noted the Attorney General Office’s failure to defend the state’s own statutes saying the attorney general “regrettably” decided not to participate.


Yeah, I hear that it’s regrettable when elected officials decline to enforce the la… what’s that? Barack Obama has been doing it with reckless abandon since he took office in 2009?

…Oh. Well, that’s embarrassing for all of those Democrats quoted in that article who criticized Chris Christie – and thus, by extension, Barack Obama. Funny how a Democrat’s refusal to defend a law that’s not nationally popular enough can boomerang on his loyal supporters like that, huh? Because there’s really no justification for whining.  If the national executive gets to pick what laws to defend, then so can the state executives.  Don’t like it?  Then police your own side, next time.

Moe Lane

PS: I would, indeed, love to live in a world where members of the various executive branches in this country didn’t feel safe to ignore (and refuse to defend) laws that they don’t like.  Thanks to Barack Obama, I don’t live in that world anymore.  Take it up with him.

6 Comments

  • midwestconservative says:

    I don’t think refusal to defend the law is something to celebrate. Or something that earns Christie any points with anybody.
    But it is nice to see Liberal hypocrisy exposed.

    • acat says:

      Exactly .. this doesn’t help the New Jersey Whale particularly, but it does further damn the Dems.
      .
      Hint to any GOPer looking to run for an AG post – if your opponent has *ever* been photographed with Obama, run ads some of these quotes.
      .
      Mew

      • midwestconservative says:

        Depends on the state. Voters in VA apparently did not care that Mark Herring basically campaigned on his absolute refusal to defend the VA Commonwealth Constitution.
        The above refusal actually convinced a former Dem AG to endorse Mark Obenshain ( Miller had beaten Richard Obenshain for the AG post back in 69)
        And convince former moderate GOP Senator John Warner to come out of retirement to fundraise for Obenshain. The Roanoke Times endorsed Obenshain ( first GOP endorsee since 01) and over a 100 Commonwealth Attorneys and Sheriffs ( including GOP, Democrats, and Independents) endorsed Obenshain.
        Didn’t stop Herring from winning though.

  • Patrick Thomas says:

    Don’t forget Jerry Brown’s refusal on Prop 8.

  • Crawford says:

    Could someone explain why the story mentions Newtown? They admit that the filing was made a month BEFORE — meaning the tragedy had no bearing on the decision. Is it simply Journalist Cant that all events regarding guns must be dated relative to their latest Blood Dance?
    .
    (And what’s a “high-caliber assault weapon”?)

  • Skip says:

    Of course, this is probably Christie trying to cover up his anti-2a past for the Republican nomination, at a perfectly safe time because he could count on the Northeastern progressive-statist judges to uphold them anyways. Not that I’m fooled, I will not vote for him. Ever. Not in a primary, not in a general. If it’s Christie versus Hillary, she’s an improvement, because the Republicans can actually be goaded into opposing her with sufficient “encouragement”, and they’re both anti-freedom and will appoint anti-freedom judges, so no difference there.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com