Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Gun Rights Organization Blasts Decision By New Jersey AG

February 1, 2011 by  

Gun rights organization blasts decision by New Jersey AGA recent motion by the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the state's handgun carry laws has raised the ire of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

The SAF, along with the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and six private citizens, claimed that the state's "justifiable need" gun permit standard violates the 2nd Amendment. However, the AG threw out the lawsuit and asserted that misuse and accidental use of handguns pose serious dangers to society.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb called the AG's motion "predictable and disappointing."

"Considering that there are more than 6.2 million law-abiding citizens licensed to carry in 48 states, and that many of these people have either intervened in, or prevented crimes by their mere presence, New Jersey's position on this issue simply defies common sense," said Gottlieb.

Gun control issues have been widely debated since the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., and recent media reports indicate that President Barack Obama is set to introduce plans for tougher policies that would make it harder to possess firearms.

Speaking at the Safari Club International's convention in Reno, Nev. over the weekend, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told a group of gun rights supporters that they need to "keep tabs on what the White House is telling us" as the President intends to "infringe further upon our 2nd Amendment rights," quoted by Newsweek

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun Rights Organization Blasts Decision By New Jersey AG”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • E. Zach Lee-Wright

    A quick test.

    Question #1: Which is the more dangerous city, El Paso, Texas or Washington DC (fyi – the two are almost exactly the same population however El Paso shares a city limits with Juarez, Mexico)?

    Question #2: Which state in the US is safer, the state with the most gun control laws or the state with the least gun control laws?

    Question #3: Is America more dangerous than another nation with extreme gun control?

    Got your answers marked? Ok, time to read the grading sheet.

    Answer #1: In 2010 El Paso, Texas had five murders. Washington DC’s murder rate was 27 times greater with 135. El Paso is slightly larger.

    Answer #2: According to the Brady Campaign Scorecard, the state with the most gun control was California which had a murder rate over 400% higher than the state with the LEAST gun control. Of course, since it is a “rate” per 100,000 of population, you realize it is already adjusted for population differences.

    Answer #3: The aforementioned mid-sized city of Juarez, Mexico had over 2800 murders in 2010, more than the six largest cities in the US combined.

    Grading Scale: If you realize citizen ownership of firearms can be and is responsible for lowering crime rates in the past twenty years and would benefit the citizens of New Jersey, you pass. If you think putting additional gun restrictions on the law abiding citizens will have the effect of reducing murders you need to take the test again.

    Thanks to the Brady Campaign for providing the data.

    • James

      E.Zach, Great information! Several years back a small city in Georgia passed an ordinance that required all residents to have a firearm, and if they couldn’t afford one, it would be provided. The crime rate there dropped to near zero.

      • 45caliber

        They passed that law in response to a town in Illinois that banned all guns in town. I saw a comparison of the crime rate in both towns a few years ago. The town in Illinois had several murders, a lot of robbery, burglaries, etc. The town you spoke about had one speeding ticket and one ticket for running a stop sign.

      • Robert Smith

        That city was Kennesaw, GA.

        [edit] Controversies[edit] Gun lawIn 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][13]

        (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

        (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.


        • Steve

          I lived in Kennesaw when that law was passed. I could not afford a gun and applied for one. They did not issue one. I was told the law was more symbolic. BUT it did do the job. Crime was lowered.

      • Captain America

        @James – Kennesaw, GA and Virgin, UT have required gun ownership laws.

    • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

      hmmm…and yet, I could say for a country with gun control…let’s go with Canada.
      Now, for a country without…how about South Africa.

      So, which one is safer? Yeah, exactly. The one WITH gun control.

      Also, I’m sure El Paso is likely just full of nice, down-home cowboy/hillbilly family type folks, and so no one is going to do anything bad, or even mean-spirited. It’s just not in their nature.

      Washington,DC on the other hand…well, it’s full of politicians and lobbyists…and they’ll stab anyone in the back, especially if it means they can make a quick buck in the process.

      It’s really all just relative.

      • independant thinker

        South Africa does have gun controls but it does no good without criminal control.

        “Furthermore, it must be noted that the act, has in no way impacted the proliferation of illegal firearms to violent criminals. With criminals more frequently committing crimes with R4 and R5 assault rifles (which are not and never has been available to normal citizens) and 9mm police issue pistols.”

        • Lewis Munn

          South Africa had gun control on whites but not blacks for quite a while, and the whites were repeatedly robbed and many killed. Before gun control, it took several blacks with knives to bring down a white. Once the whites had guns controlled, they were robbed and murdered in large numbers.

          Gun control must include the whole nation, army and all, and all visitors. or the unarmed are exploited by the armed.

          Then you have to add knife control, and later fist control…..

  • American Patriot

    Watch this informative documentary. “WARNING” This is not for the weak of heart.

  • Rusty

    I have a spare tire, jumper cables, insurance, a flashlight, a first aid kit, a gun, and a fire extinguisher. I even have life jackets in my boat. Nothing in my past justifies the need for any of these items and I hope you and I never have a need. I know if a need arises for any of the above I cannot wait for government to save the day.

    • Kat

      Thanks Rusty for a brilliant response to this. Having to ask the government for permission to protect your family is madness. And ironically this is the same government tat would ticket you for not having life preservers for all your passengers or not having a flare kit on your boat. The only reason governments want to restrict gun ownership is to control citizens. An arm man is a citizen and unarmed man is a subject. I will keep my guns and Obama and his minions can keep the change.

      • Bus

        The government is an extension of US. Why do you people keep electing elitest idiots that think they can protect us better than we can protect ourselves. Throw the bums out!

        • Richard

          We threw some of them out last November and the next election is less than 22 months away. More will go!

  • Rusty

    This year will go down in history. For the first time in history, a
    civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be
    safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead
    into the future.

    Adolf Hitler- 1935

    • Al Sieber

      History does repeat itself. mayor Bloomberg needs to keep his undercover agents out of Ariz. and out of our gun shows.

      • independant thinker

        I did not know they had made it to Arizona. I did know he had sent them to places east of the Mississippi river though.

        • eddie47d

          So what Al and Independent; Does the truth hurt? (about those gun shows) I do agree that New Jersey is going too far in requiring a “justifiable need” law. That would lead to only the police having guns.

          • Al Sieber

            eddie, what do you know about the gun shows in Ariz.? all you hear is main stream media, do you get this from Fox News?

      • 45caliber


        If I’m not mistaken, some charges were filed over his acts outside his jurisdiction.

        • Al Sieber

          45,Your right about that, he has no jurisdiction here, this is just a political move on his part. in Ariz. they might ask you for Ariz. ID for the purchase of a fire arm, or might not. all you need is Ariz. DL or ID.

          • Dan az

            I like the swap meets there is no registration there!

    • 45caliber


      Exactly. And look what he did with that act.

  • Towncar07

    Rusty must be being sarcastic. He is wrong on every point. Neither full gun registration nor permit requirements will do anything but allow the ones that want a gun, to get one (think out-of-trunk sales)
    The Police will have no extra safety, since they can still be [shot] by anyone from anyone that has access to a gun ($$$ talks)
    The world has already shown what happens when all the guns are confiscated, it’s called a police state.
    The big losers are the country, which is now subject to the whims of both the government and the gunner…and the individual, which now has no protection from either. It’s called captivity. No thank you.

    • 45caliber

      A professional truck driver pays as much as $150,000 or more for a good truck to drive. Do you think any professional criminal is going to shy away from paying several thousand dollars for the equipment of his profession? Or that he’d give up his profession because someone insisted he license it?

    • 45caliber


      If you look, Rusty was quoting a politician who mananged to get gun control passed in his country using those exact words. Perhap you will recognize the name – and what he accomplished with that gun control.

  • Raggs

    Further attempts to disarm America for the fear of decent by the population against a tyrannical government…

    Am I close?

    • Al Sieber

      You hit the nail on the head, that’s as close as you can get. I think they’re expecting descent in this country real soon.

      • Richard Pawley

        You are certainly correct in that, Al. Just keep away from the big cities when the riots start (not for a few years yet I hope). If you see a big crowd forming go home and watch it on TV. Don’t get caught in the mass hysteria. In my politically incorrect book THE LAST DAYS OF THE LATE GREAT UNITED STATES and the Great Famine that Followed, I wrote about the 20,000 troops they are training for the riots here when the money is inflated by the insane spending and the dollar is worth only a third or a quarter of what it is now, things could get really ugly. Don’t be like an elderly couple I know of in Cairo, who did manage, last week, to get to the store and buy a weeks worth of groceries. They are minority of Christians who will be among the first to be persecuted if the Muslim Brotherhood take over there although they have been there for hundreds of years before Islam and Sharia Law was ever invented. With all the warnings on this site and others, in the two books I wrote, and so many other place, with knowledgeable people saying the same thing, make sure you are prepared for the day – hopefully not for a few years – BUT YOU CAN’T COUNT ON THAT – when the stores will be empty for a month. It a grave mistake to believe that all is going to remain as it is, especially in such troubled times as these, with out nation broke, and politicians with their heads in the cloud pretending all is well. Don’t shrug it off and say as so many do, “Oh, it will never happen here!” If that is true why would the government be training troops to supplement the police who will probably be at home taking care of their own families? Mencius, the Chinese philosopher said, “Manhood at it’s best does not come in numbers” and outside the Kingdom of Heaven I see no reason to disagree with him. If the new congress is not vastly different than the old one, and they just raise the national debt, you can count on prices skyrocketing as they just keep printing money. As it is I foresee food and fuel at least tripling and I have said so for several years now because of all the waste and spending of the 111th Congress. May God bless all who read this.

  • MR.Washington
  • Anthony

    The ONLY reason for Gun Registration .. is so they can “take them away”.

    In the early years of America – everyone had a gun; every child was raised to learn how to handle guns proficiently; everyone had no need to alert anyone else, no matter where, that they might have a gun. It was understood, that you had one and were at least smart enough to know how to use it with some respect for yourself and those around you. Do we ever see any early Press Reports of ANY psycho, with a gun, becoming a serial killer?

    Both England and Australia were DISARMED quite some time ago.
    The ONLY reason the NWO has not become real fact – is America is still armed.
    Americans still carrying firearms is also the only reason that population reduction is still a pipe-dream for the NWO, stamped into the Georgia Guidestones.

    When we are disarmed – only cops and criminals will have guns.
    We will become just like MEXICO …. and you are on your own.

    • 45caliber

      If any and every one in Mexico was allowed a gun, I seriously doubt that too many of the gang members would be shooting up the place. There would be too much chance of someone in the line of stray bullets deciding that he’d have enough of their fun and put an end to it.

      • Raggs

        .45 …. Thats a good point, just imagine if WE the people had our rights stripped away it sure would make it easy for criminals to rule over us.

        • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

          @Raggs – ummm, hello…? Criminals did rule over you. They just called themselves the ‘Bush administration’ at the time though.

          • independant thinker

            Before that they called themselves the Clinton administration and now they call themselves the Obama adminstration.

      • Al Sieber

        45, I believe they disarmed Mexico in the 1960′s. but, a lot of people kept theres.

  • s c

    While that AG is busy acting like any other political yahoo, he should ban all public schools in NJ (all 50 states, or all 57 states, according to Obummer). Recent history proves it’s hard enough to get a good education with Uncle Scam running the circus.
    When gun-toting space cadets show up in public schools, it can be a very dangerous place. Ergo, progressive-style “logic” says all dangerous situations must be eliminated (and a public school is a “logical” place to start).
    And, politicians must be denied access to weapons, as they tend to be incompetent and they represent a danger to themselves and the American people. Also, all politicians should be required to wear electronic ankle bracelets, so they won’t get lost or try to run away. Then, life will be beautiful, and America will be a utopia.

    • 45caliber

      If they pass the stupid idea of banning anyone having a gun within 100 yards (or whatever the latest figure is) of a politician, we need some way to know where the politician’s are. Perhaps some sort of alarm they wear that beeps as they move about? Or perhaps we should just restrict them to their homes and not allow them out?

      • s c

        45caliber, my best advice is to force politicians to stay in their home state(s) – [i. e., don't let them go to Washington]. That way, they’d never take up space in Washington, they’d be where people have access to them and our wannabe political “saviors” could get used to communicating via a phone, the internet or face-to-face.
        With a little luck, the miserable @#$%* might even learn how to READ and become responsible.

    • Dan az

      sc your in a good mood today!lol I like it!

  • James

    For the record:

    In the original Constitution (1789), the powers that were delegated to Congress (Article I, Section 8) made no mention of rights, and about half of the Founders believed that would suffice to prevent the new federal government from legislating over rights. However, others thought future congresses might misconstrue those powers, to include rights, and insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights (in 1791). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

    Thus the stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was to add “restrictive clauses” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” with respect to rights, where ‘its powers’ referred to the federal government. The Second Amendment reads:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Viewing the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights’ context has misled many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as a proclamation to all governments, including state legislatures as well as Congress. But, just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” obviously applies exclusively to the federal government, so also does the Second Amendment.

    In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.”
    In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the Second Amendment right of the blacks. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”
    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” After meticulous analysis of every word and clause in the amendment, the Heller Court stated: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

    Just remember that that decision involved an ordinance of a territory (the District of Columbia), which falls under federal jurisdiction, it has no effect within the States. The Heller Court cited Barron, Cruikshank and other High Court decisions as precedents.
    In McDonald v. Chicago, the case just recently decided by the High Court, the issue was whether a state’s city ordinance, which prohibited handgun possession in a certain area, had violated the Second Amendment. Based upon previous High Court precedents, it did not the Court rather held that it violated the “liberty” in the “due process of law” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is, the “liberty” of that Amendment now includes the unalienable right to bear arms, just as previous decisions added miscegenation, abortion and homosexual acts to one’s “liberty.”
    No State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment, for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.

    • Vicki

      James writes:
      “No State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment, for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.”

      James needs to do much more research. Finding the error of his arguement was way too easy.

      The specific part of the quote is “for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.”

      If this statement were true than freedom of speech, expression, religion would not exist in one or more states. Some state constitutions do in fact have their own copy of the First Amendment. Go down the list however and you will find that all of them except the 2nd have been applied to the states even when the states do not have an equivilent amendment.

      Finally amendments 9 and 10 are part of the Bill of Rights. Amendment 10 even says that States can not have certain powers.

      • James

        Vicki, I have cited and quoted Supreme Court case-law, which is what my statement was based upon. Substituting what you think about the Bill of Rights, for its entire legal history, is just silly. I defy anyone on this planet to show me where any court, state or federal, has held a state firearms law in violation of the Second Amendment. Put up or shut up!

        • Joe M

          James, you missed, just as NJ’s AG did, the second half of Heller, Supreme Court case: 08-1521 McDonald v. Chicago (06/28/2010). Quoting directly from, “JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.”
          I assume you know what incorporation means.

      • James

        Vicki, the 9th Amendment says the restrictive theme of the Bill of Rights applies to all rights whether enumerated therein or not. And the 10th Amendment simply reminds Congress that powers not delegated to it “are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” It says nothing about those powers that were reserved, because they include all powers except those delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8.

  • http://com i41

    Durning hunting season just in Wisconin there are 700,000 armed citizens add all the other atates, largest civiaan army, and slubs thinking registations and laws are going to protect you. I’ll take the hunters and average Joe Six Packs any day. Should have a season on illegals, muslim pedophiles, and beltway idoits, only trouble is what dame call would you use, a s–t bird loony?

    • 45caliber

      You don’t use bird calls for such people; you use moose grunts.

  • Kat

    If Americans want liberty back they need to follow the lead of the founders and start by breaking all these unconstitutional gun laws. What part of shall not be infringed does the government not understand and why are Americans permitting the government to regulate firearm ownership at all? We have ample gun laws regulating the use of firearms we do not need any regulating ownership. The felons get guns whenever they want anyway so even regulating their possession of guns is pointless. In fact, we did not have any laws regulating ownership until 1968 and ironically we also had a lower per capita violent crime rate back then even though felons had ready access to firearms. Restore constitutional carry and end the unconstitutional BATFE now and give me back my country.

    • Earl

      Just a quick comment here……The Gun Control act of 1968 is patterned very nearly word for word like the German Gun Control act of 1935 (compliments of Adolf Hitler)In Nazi Germany. We all know what happened in the Warsaw ghettos! Our current crop of gun-grabbers are of the same mentality.

    • Earl

      The BATFE was supposed to be a tax enforcement agency created during prohibition (and then added onto piecemeal) later on. The famous Elliot Ness and the Untouchables was part of the original ATF.

  • 45caliber

    Not a surprise in NJ. Some years ago (about 15) they passed a law there that banned all semi-automatic rifles and pistols. There was an estimate of 300,000 in the state. The law demanded that all be turned in. Just over 500 were.

    The next election found the biggest turnover of state officials in the history of the US. They immediately repealed that law.

  • Bus

    I asked a former neighbor what was the hardest part of his move to New Jersey? Was it the drive? finding a place to live? Packing everything? “No” he said, “the hardest part was the surgery.” What surgery? “The lobotomy I was required to have to be a citizen of the state.”

    • http://deleted Claire

      I have friends in New Jersey and they are wanting to get out, they hate it.

      • Richard Pawley

        Quite a few of the rich have left already and NY has lost well over a million citizens in the past decade.

  • Captain America

    1) New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
    2) In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
    3) In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
    4) Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

    • 45caliber

      And the liberals simply can’t see that corelation.

    • Richard Pawley

      And as I pointed out in my book, these statistics hold true for many other countries, with murder by gun rates going up as much as 340% once the honest people were deprived of the ability to protect themselves.

  • http://igoogle PEH

    I love my NRA t-shirt which simply says—

    “The Second Amendment
    America’s Original Homeland Security”

    Sure breaks through all of the #@&##& “FLUFF”

    • 45caliber

      I’ve got the same one. And I’ve had people stop me and ask where I got it so they could get one too.

      • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

        I believe Wal-Mart has them. They should be right next to all the NASCAR apparel.

        Or as the hillbillies call it, the ‘church duds/Sunday best’ aisle.

        • libertytrain

          More slurs from the “progressive” left. Yep this one clearly demonstrates the intellectual capabilities of the left.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            now that I know dogma doesn’t like them, I think I’ll go out and buy one tomorrow!!!! I’ve got one I bought at a yard sale that says” Do your part for pest control, don’t vote dem!!!”

          • Richard Pawley

            Hey Joe H. are you the gentlemen who got some help from mediation back in 2009 (or at least you wrote about it then) on this site?
            I was cruising the Internet and came across something I had said in 2009, warning about the dangers of TM while at the same time pointing out the value of mediation. About a week after I wrote that you (if you are that Joe H.) mentioned how meditation had helped you but you were meditating on a flame and it greatly lowered your blood pressure and gave you temporary relief. I had not seen your answer before now and answered what you said a year later. If you will go back to that article – address below – you can read my reply:

  • Dan az

    Dear Mr. President,

    Please find below my suggestion for fixing America ‘s economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
    You can call it the “Patriotic Retirement Plan”:

    There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

    1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings – Unemployment fixed.

    2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed.

    3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed.

    It can’t get any easier than that!!

    P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes..

    Mr. President, while you’re at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I’ll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

  • Captain America

    Anyone here the latest story today about the 7 year old by charged by NJ police for bringing a Nerf toy gun to school?

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      My goodness, he could have shot his nerf classmates or even a nerf cop with that thing. He needs a beating with a nerf whip.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.