Assemblywoman Donna Simon: Inane and On the Job

As the nation continues to pull out of the most devastating economic downturn in a half-century, New Jersey lags behind. From most credible points of view – statistically, academically, and though plain observation, The Great Recession never ended here. Instead, it continues to grind on under the completely inept, arrogant leadership of a largely absentee governor in hot pursuit of national office. Here in the Garden State, joblessness, poverty, deteriorating social services and a dangerous wealth gap continue like it’s still 2008.

Tip O’Neal, the late, great speaker of the House of Representatives once said “all politics is local.” Upon considering his famous phrase, I began to think how my local legislators (I live in the Princeton area, or District 16) are reacting to this ongoing crisis. The State Legislature is absolutely the most powerful governmental entity in this state – and any state. While frequently divided, if a state legislature has enough political will, I can quickly take the reigns of power and direction from a governor and make him or her bend to its will. Only the legislature has the power to raise taxes, spend money, and make law. Any governor, however much in possession of personality or constitutional authority, has little or no clout in the face of a determined legislature. And let it also be said that the New Jersey legislature has the ability to impeach and remove the governors or any of his appointees.

So with Christie on his constant interstate adventures, who is minding the store? Well, it’s not the legislature, and especially not the lawmakers in my district. And if I could point out any legislator who is more out of touch, more uninterested in directly tackling the state’s numerous and very serious problems, it’s Republican Assemblywoman Donna Simon. When it comes to politicians who seemingly operate on a form of cruise control to nowhere, she takes the cake.

Just consider three bills she’s either sponsoring or co-sponsoring in the current legislative session. Now before I go into the bills, allow me to explain why I’m not nitpicking. Proposed Bills mean a lot to legislators and their constituents. Bills are the only solid, tangible indicator of what a particular politician seeks to achieve. Legislators can make speeches and all kinds of promises during campaigns, but only through their bills do they really have any chance of implementing actual ideas. So these proposals really ‘count’ and ought to be considered as the most genuine reflection of what a politician is contemplating and has to offer.

Assemblywoman Donna Simon
aims to protect New Jerseyans from
 such modern horrors as being forced
 to pay for your kids' college and people who
 make love to dogs. I am not kidding.

Let's examine this ‘trinity’ of bills which amply demonstrate what makes her faulty clock tick.

First, there is A3104, or more straightforwardly (and I’ve named it) the “New Jersey Gun Control Repeal Act.” This bill is perhaps the most radical, most right-wing, most reactionary proposal of the entire legislative session. It’s right out of Alabama. The bill would effectively eliminate most if not all forms of gun control in the state. It would enable county officials to undercut gun control laws by having the power to issue firearms identification cards, but that’s not the most extreme part. The bill, if ever passed, would transform the New Jersey into a “shall issue” state for people seeking to get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Under the bill, any person qualified to purchase and own a firearm (again, which would be a simplified process on the county level) would be entitled to pack heat.

So basically, if Simon’s bill were brought to lawful fruition, New Jersey would quickly be transformed into another version of Florida, complete with nonstop daytime shootouts at convenience stores and weekly household massacres. Oh, and of course, there’s the ever-present possibility of another Newtown slaughter.

Firearms aside, Simon’s also turned her attention not to pressing issues like cancer research at Rutgers, or student poverty, but to one of the most imperative issues today: Parents who face the nightmare of a court ordering them to pay for their kids’ college education. Yes, she actually wrote a bill, A4070, addressing this predicament directly. It would bar N.J. courts from ordering any parents to pay for college. I’ll call it the “Good Luck Kid, You’re On Your Own Act.” Though her party ostensibly champions the notion of “Family Values,” apparently Simon thinks that this personal form of parental betrayal ought to be enshrined in law itself. You can’t make this stuff up.

Then there’s the icing in the cake. A bill so perceptibly ridiculous, so hideously unnecessary, so completely silly, that it more than demonstrates her aloofness from the everyday concerns of residents. Again, does the bill fund our ailing highways and bridges? Does it enable the students of Camden to learn in a decent environment by requiring its schools provide heat? Is this a bill that aims to bring billions of dollars to Atlantic City so that coastal community doesn’t literally fall into the sea? Nah. Simon’s ‘best’ bill, A3012, bans bestiality. Yes, you read that correctly. Simon’s not concerned with the chaotic gun violence in Trenton. She’s apparently not losing any sleep over the horrendous, months-long delays for families applying for Medicaid. No, she wants to direct the state’s attention against the real enemy: people who French kiss their dogs. Now I’m not a person who advocates bestiality – but there was one time that my dog Dusty greeted me at the door and licked my face. So for all I know, depraved pet owners like me could be in Simon’s crosshairs.

Donna Simon. Yes, she’s thinking outside the box. Far outside of it. Really, miles away from it. She’s floating away from the box, to the point where it's become a visible speck. Perhaps she’s laughing, perhaps not, but the joke is on us. As New Jersey continues to flounder, Simon and her pals remain focused on complete and utter nonsense. They get away with it because we let them. 

To Fight Gun Violence, We'll Need to Change Our Strategy

Man, you’ve got to love New Jersey’s gunnies. Like their Eagle-loving brethren in the other great states of the Nugent Republic, they feel the need to carry, load, polish, write about, blog over, buy, sell, massage, aim and shoot their constitutionally protected, sacred firearms. I know these people well. I used to be one of them. And before I go into an entire explanation of their beliefs and their vision for America’s future, I want to start off with a very, very important statement. Though their view of history is skewed and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is faulty, on legal grounds, they’re winning. They’re winning big-time. And the people of New Jersey need to know there is a very good chance that, using recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the Gunnies are very close to achieving most if not all of their goals right here in the Garden State. 

What are their goals? In short, to completely deregulate firearms, aside from automatic weapons (yes, even most Second Amendment lovers agree that machine guns are not protected by the Bill of Rights). This vision amounts to the ability of any adult to freely purchase, store, and carry unconcealed, loaded firearms on their person. Everywhere. Anytime. And to their credit, they do not make this a secret.

First, let’s take their constitutional philosophy. They embrace a rather selective interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment states, if you haven’t read it in a zillion other places already, the following:

“A well regulated militia, essential to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The amendment was drafted by James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in the late 1790’s. Madison was a very smart guy, a true legal genius. We need to read his words assuming that he knew what he was writing and talking about. So what did he mean? Did he mean that Americans have the right to have and carry firearms? Was he defining this right along the lines of the First Amendment, where he clearly stated, “Congress shall make no law…” abridging the freedom of the press, petition, assembly, and worship? In my opinion, he was not. Absolutely, straightforward, not.

Again, we need to understand that when he drafted the Bill of Rights, and the Congress and States approved of it, there were plenty of opportunities for changes, deletions and commentaries. So our final result must be taken for what it is. The Second Amendment does not state that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. It has a clause that does contain such a right, but is dependent on that right being exercised when one is part of a “well regulated militia.” It’s ironic, that the Gunnies of today so disdain regulation when this very portion of the Constitution states it so plainly.

Okay, so what was the militia? Was it simply all the people, or at least, as understood at the time, all armed, white male adults? No. It was not.

In the original 13 states, “the militia,” which were not the equivalents to the modern-day, federally controlled National Guard, were similar. A militia was a state’s official armed force. It had ranks, rules and regulations. Militias were under state command (usually the governor or one of his appointees) and were not, ever, the counterpart to hunting or beer drinking gangs of good ol’ boys. They were meant for serious business, from keeping the public order to preventing and fighting Indians, foreign invasions, and in the South, Slave revolts. They were official collective entities and lawful bodies that placed genuine and comprehensive requirements on their members, from training to mandatory call-ups for action. For the most part, they do not exist anymore in their original forms.

In some state miltias men could use their own firearms, in others, firearms would be provided for them. They and their members were protected by the rules of war. Again, these organizations were not individual clubs, but state-regulated bodies. A citizen could not just show up one day during a crisis and say, “Hey, I’m a member of this militia because I have a gun, so let’s get this thing started!” It did not work like that. There were rosters, lists, levels, orders, etc.

So the idea that Madison simply wrote of a right where everyone could keep and bear arms isn’t factual. If he wanted such a right to be recognized, he would have said so. He meant that any idea of keeping and bearing firearms would only be protected within the organization of not a private army, but a “well regulated” government militia.

Okay, so perhaps you agree with what I just wrote. Perhaps you disagree. For the entire 20^th century, the Supreme Court agreed with my interpretation of the Second Amendment. They don’t anymore, and this is where things get interesting, and potentially dangerous.

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court handed down one of its landmark decisions from its secure, pearly-white marble temple in D.C.

Dubbed D.C. v. Heller, the High Court straightforwardly stated, and left no doubt, absolutely zero doubt, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a personal one. Yes, it could be subject to some limitations; guns could be barred from courthouses and perhaps schools, but gun ownership and gun bearing was an adult right. That was their opinion, and whether you or I like it or not, it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Just like the High Court struck down racial segregation in the 1950’s, just like it recognized abortion rights in the early 1970’s, it has stated that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal one. Supreme Court case law is complex but it is not a salad bar. You cannot pick and choose from its decisions. You need to take it as a whole. 

New Jersey, today, has some of the most comprehensive gun control laws on the books. To “keep and bear arms” a state resident must get a series of permits, starting with a “Permit to Purchase.” You cannot even touch a firearm at one of the state’s gun shops or shows unless you possess this permit, which is very difficult to get and requires a series of expensive and comprehensive background checks at the local and state levels.

I’m going to be honest with you here. Regardless of all the other gun laws on the books in our state, the permit requirements are the real heart of the gun control system. If New Jersey’s permit system is ever overturned you will see guns for sale at every Walmart, Target and strip mall. You will see armed citizens exercising their right to “open carry” on every road, at every public park and beach, in every business, in every shopping mall and convenience store. If you don’t believe me, you don’t have to…just ask anyone from Florida.

The Heller case has since been expanded by the Supreme Court and there is no reason to think that the Court will reverse itself on this core issue. The Gunnies won in the highest court in the land, hands down.

So where does this leave us, those that support sanity in firearms law?

We Americans that support gun control or even gun bans need to be realistic. We need an amendment to the Federal Constitution. Perhaps it is unrealistic to think that we could repeal the entire Second Amendment. But at least we should start pressing for an amendment that leaves such interpretations up to the states or other localities. If people in Texas and Louisiana want to believe that God and Moses and George Washington gave them the right to keep and carry a gun, and they want to write that into their state and local laws, then fine. But a majority of people in the state of New Jersey do not feel that way and never have. I do not believe that Madison ever intended the interpretation of this ‘right’ to go this far, and additionally, the firearm he was writing about was the clumsy musket, not the contemporary semi-automatic pistol or assault gun. You cannot kill 25 hysterical, fleeing children in under three minutes with a musket, and you never could. With a 9mm pistol and some spare ammunition, if murder is your intention, the sky’s the limit. 

Again, to sum it all up, you can mock the Gunnies. You can call them hicks and rednecks. You can say that they’re nuts, and some of them are, but their 'personally oriented' interpretation of the Second Amendment is law. So let’s deal with this issue from this new perspective and stop arguing over the Second Amendment. Otherwise, we’ll never stop the bullets from flying.