Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Are NJ Gun Owners Rats On A Sinking Ship?



As the euphoria of the 2016 presidential elections is wearing off, another feeling is starting to creep in on gun owners throughout our state.  That feeling is one of great concern for the few gun rights we currently enjoy.

As Governor Christie's term is coming to an end, gun owners have to start accepting that in the near future, the few gun rights we currently enjoy are going to come under almost certain attack from politicians in the state.  Don't get me wrong, while Governor Christie has done nothing to improve gun rights in the state, at the very least he prevented more bad legislation from taking effect.  As the thought of a Liberal Democratic Governor is an utmost certainty, Democrats are going to have free reign over screwing over further restricting gun rights and enacting harsh legislations that will hamper the 2nd Amendment. 

But wait... there is a chance, there are two Republicans running in this race, you say. Let's be realistic.

First, over the last 100 years, only once has the incumbent party kept the Governor's office for a third term, after a Governor termed out.  That occurred in 1962 when Democrat Richard Hughes won office after two terms of fellow Democrat Robert Meyner. 

Secondly, does anyone in their right minds think that a Republican can win after the "BridgeGate" Scandal and Governor Christie's close association to President Trump?

In either case, neither of the Republican candidates have the financial or the political capital to compete with Phil Murphy.  (who is having ex VP Joe Biden fly in for a campaign visit)

Short of a miracle, NJ residents better get used to the idea of Governor Phil Murphy.

So What Does A Governor Murphy Mean For Gun Owners?

The idea of a Governor Murphy should frighten any gun owner in the state, wishing and willing to give anything to have a "moderate" Sweeney over Liberal Murphy.

To get an idea of the gun agenda, we take a look at what Phil Murphy has on his website,,


Sign commonsense legislation that Christie vetoed: Phil Murphy would start by signing every piece of gun violence prevention legislation that Governor Christie has vetoed.

These bipartisan measures would have kept guns out of the hands of gang members and individuals convicted of making terroristic threats (without due process), restricted the size of gun magazines, and prohibited the sale of a powerful .50-caliber rifle.

The website further goes to point out the legislation that would prevent persons on the various government watch lists from being able to purchase a firearm. While this is the most "sensible" legislation, it failed for one key reason, there was ZERO due process for person's on those watch lists.  People on the no fly lists, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman John Lewis, and CNN reporter Drew Griffin would not be allowed to purchase firearms.  

Beyond that, it would mean Phil Murphy would sign legislation that would confiscate guns from people accused of non-violent domestic issues and limits on the firearms that you may own, including lower magazine limits

To take the ridiculous to the next level, Phil Murphy proposes the following,

  • Mandate gun safety training: No one should be able to purchase a firearm without first attending a gun safety training course.
  • Promote smart gun technology: We must regain our position as a leader in the smart gun movement by requiring all gun retailers to carry at least one smart gun once they are commercially available.
  • Tax gun sales to prevent violence: All gun sales should be subject to a tax that will fund law enforcement, drug treatment centers, and mental health services.
  • Strengthen regulations on gun transfers: Phil Murphy would make it a crime to sell guns without conducting a mandatory background check, and would require individuals to register their firearms kept in the state.
  • Prohibit the "sale of a powerful .50-caliber rifle."

Required Gun Safety Training

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.   These good intentions seem "sensible" to the common resident of New Jersey, but they are surely hell for any gun owner.

Look, I am ALL FOR gun owners having safety training and technological improvements that would be helpful for those looking for it, HOWEVER, since when can the government restrict a God given right?

Are people required to take a public speaking class before talking to anyone?  Perhaps they should be, but just like free speech, and UNLIKE driving, the right to keep and bear arms.... is a right, and not a privilege.  

Are gun owners who do not take the "mandated gun safety training" to be considered "un-trustworthy"? 

If so, prior to the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons in Nazi Germany, Jews were disarmed by the police on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'"  On that basis, who is to control the educational requirements? Who sets the agenda? Do we have the same educational requirements before we go buy a bottle of Vodka or a kitchen knife?  Are gun owners who do not complete this education requirement going to be stripped of their guns and GUN RIGHTS?

More importantly, who is going to pay for this training?

As much as I am all for gun owners taking gun training classes, I do not see anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights anything related to being "educated" before practicing a right.

Smart Guns

The problem here is what is not told.  The NJ Smart Gun laws would REQUIRE every gun sold in NJ to be a "smart gun" once one is commercially available. Yep.... so unless they repeal the existing law, this should be a non starter for ANYONE.  Beyond that, do we require every grocery stores to carry certain items?  Why should gun store owners and operators be TOLD what they HAVE TO offer.

Gun Sales Tax

How do you make sure you keep poor people poor?  You keep on taxing them.  

One thing that I have learned over the last 9 years with NJ Gun Forums is that gun owners in this state comes from all demographic groups.  For every affluent gun owner, there are 20 people who love shooting but have to scrape up every cent they can save in order to fund their new gun purchase.  

Any firearms sales tax is only going to hurt gun buyers, and more importantly will hurt the vendors in the state.  The ONLY people who will be winning are the gun dealers in PA and Delware who will be more than happy to sell their guns to NJ gun buyers.

Required NICS and Gun Registration

Hold on there... didn't the municipality and the state police just do the extensive background check when they issued that FID and those brand spanking new pistol permits?

I think it is a good idea to do a NICS check anyway, but it is yet annother financial burden and expense.  There is a $15 nics charge in NJ, because NJ gets its grubby paws on it, rather than the federal NICS system used in most of Free America.  Are NICS checks going to be free for everyone in NJ?

Gun Registration? The state police and the municipality already have those records every time a pistol permit gets sent in.  But in any case... you know who also had mandatory gun registrations?  Hitler, Stalin and Mao all enacted gun registration and subsequent gun confiscation before they murdered millions of political dissidents.  (all under good intentions of course).


“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” - Adolph Hitler, April 1942


Ban on 50 Caliber Rifles

Seriously?  Again?

Can any politician give a realistic reason to ban all 50 caliber rifles?

When was the last time that a criminal committed a crime in NJ with a 50 caliber... flintlock, 50 Beowolf, 500 Nitro Express or muzzle loader.... those are after all more likely to be in someone's gun collection than a $5k or more expensive Barrett 50 BMG.    Heck, why not go after 600/700 Nitro Express, 500 S&W, 50 Action Express too. 

The biggest risk to airplanes (the commonly cited 2010 case) is not a guy with a 50 caliber rifle, but rather the broken infrastructure all around.   

Bottom Line

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Acton

A democrat in the governor's office and a democrat controlled legislature is grim news for New Jersey and anyone concerned with gun rights.

What's different this time is that it is a top item for Democrats eager to do anything to act out against President Trump.

There are many gun rights advocates in the state who will say we have to rise up and fight.  Unfortunately I don't think it will make any difference this time for the simple facts that the powers that be both do not understand gun issues, nor CARE about your rights. 

For those that can leave, it may be opportune to do as @Pizza Bob says in every post "adios."   For everyone else left behind, hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


For further reading and discussion on this topic I recommend, 

While we typically do not have political topics out in general discussion, @67gtonut has set up a special section dedicated to the 2017 NJ Gubernatorial Race, We look forward to seeing you there.

4 people like this
  Report Entry


NJ Has plenty of Liberal gun owners and Liberal Gun Sellers... Just the remarks iv heard over the last few years makes me want to vomit. People are so quick to give up on our rights while allowing the government to create new ones that do not and never have existed.

Its a shame when you have political parties using our rights as talking points.  

This country has increased gun control with little to no effect on the issue that started the conversation.
Have "Mass shootings" slowed down or increased in the last 40 years???

I always find it entertaining when law makers question my rights while at the same time tell me someone who lives 2000 miles from the US border has rights over mine.


Share this comment

Link to comment

If politicians were serious about "common sense" gun control it would look something like this:

1.  Commit a crime while using a firearm (bank robbery, home invasion, rape, mugging, etc, etc) get a decade added to your prison term when found guilty.  No pleading down to a lesser charge.  No making the gun charge go away.

1a)  Ex-felons found with any firearm (which is in and of itself a violation of law) go to jail for 10 years minimum.  Even if the crime which led to their arrest was entirely nonviolent.

2.  Expand firearm rights for legal gun owners.  Examples - do away with mag limits, do away with "evil features" which in reality are simply cosmetic differences, allow law abiding citizens the right to carry conceal, do away with the permitting scheme.  Does't have to be all at once.  Can be over time.  Once it is evident that "blood isn't running in the streets" and "main street hasn't become the wild west" then continue to further expand law abiding citizens rights.  The place that has blood running in the streets and what seems to be nonstop shootings is Detroit.  A city with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country.

The above would be a "compromise".  Criminals using firearms or felons possessing firearms receive harsh sentence.  Law abiding gun owners remain overtaxed, but much happier, NJ citizens.  Police and prosecutors can focus on criminals rather than looking for ways to destroy law abiding gun owners lives (Shaneen Allen, Brian Atkin, Brian Fletcher, etc, etc)

Above will never happen because it is logical.  

Are NJ gun owners on a sinking ship.  Yes.  The problem is so is EVERYONE else in NJ!



1 person likes this

Share this comment

Link to comment

"1.  Commit a crime while using a firearm (bank robbery, home invasion, rape, mugging, etc, etc) get a decade added to your prison term when found guilty.  No pleading down to a lesser charge.  No making the gun charge go away. "


If you demonize the inanimate object it will remain the focus instead of the individual.

1 person likes this

Share this comment

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Shane45 said:

"1.  Commit a crime while using a firearm (bank robbery, home invasion, rape, mugging, etc, etc) get a decade added to your prison term when found guilty.  No pleading down to a lesser charge.  No making the gun charge go away. "


If you demonize the inanimate object it will remain the focus instead of the individual.

No.  The libs don't want violence committed with firearms.  So make the penalty harsher if a crime is committed using a firearm.  Make it absolute that the punishment will be handed down rather than plead away.

It's not "demonizing the inanimate object".  It's letting the populace know that harsher penalties WILL BE imposed if caught committing a crime while using a firearm to help commit that crime.  Rather than not committing a crime and simply having a firearm in your possession is the crime.  The laws right now are "demonizing the inanimate object" rather than the actions of the individual.  If it's discovered that a person in a liquor store is CCing  while shopping in NJ the firearm is the violation.  The person has committed no crime.  They've not acted with bad intentions.

To use your terminology, it would actually be "de-demonizing" the object because law abiding citizens would be allowed more freedom to purchase and carry.  As firearms become more social acceptable in places like NJ, their stigmata would be slowly eroded away.


1 person likes this

Share this comment

Link to comment

The demonizing of the inanimate object is how we got the laws we have now. You yourself are succumbing to it because you believe if you allow greater penalty to those that commit crimes with a gun will somehow translate into greater freedoms for the law abiding. NJ is proof positive it doesn't work that way. Is there any greater penalty for committing mass murder with a plane or a truck? No because the focus remains on the individual. What about a case that you or I would see as justifiable use of a firearm but the anti 2a prosecutor and judge don't so not only does he get railroaded, he gets additional charges. To see this in action one only has to look at the discrepancy in Brian Aiken's sentence of 7 years vs the person that beat his toddler to brain damage around the same time that got around 4 years. There's tons of cases where the sentence for a crime that didn't even include an overt criminal act that resulted in a sentence far above those given to actual criminals.

Share this comment

Link to comment

I'm not succumbing to anything.  I'm simply saying punish those who actually commit a crime WHILE using a firearm in the commission of that crime.  Some would call it "getting tough on crime".  Erase all the bs NJ anti-gun law that do zero to deter crime and only destroy the lives of otherwise law abiding citzens.





Share this comment

Link to comment

I think you mistakenly believe that these laws are unintentional. They are very much intentional. This state does not want you to have guns. This states court system has already stated you own them through exemptions at your own peril. This state does not care if things end unfairly for you and its about to get a lot worse. I agree with your position that all the BS laws that do nothing but ensnare the unaware and create criminals should end. Things that are a major crime here are mere parking ticket equivalents in other states. But again, that mind set of "evil guns" the courts have, in my opinion, got that way by always having the focus on the firearm instead of the person.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Oh, I have no illusions that the laws aren't exactly as the politicians wnat them to be.  

Mind blowing that people keep electing the same politicians.  A lot of NJ suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. 

Share this comment

Link to comment

I wouldn't say Rats.  We're more like the first class passengers trying to get to the lifeboats, being blocked by the crew as the steerage crowds the rails...

But yes, the Titanic is still sinking.

Share this comment

Link to comment
On 2/28/2018 at 5:02 PM, mustang69 said:

I wouldn't say Rats.  We're more like the first class passengers trying to get to the lifeboats, being blocked by the crew as the steerage crowds the rails...

But yes, the Titanic is still sinking.

...and taking on water QUICKLY!!

Share this comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Blogs

  • Blog Entries

  • Similar Content

    • By oldguysrule649
      Given the very challenging times we are experiencing especially here in NJ, I am taking the liberty of reposting something here that I had posted in the 1st Amendment section three years ago.  The broader membership, including the many new forum members that have joined since that time, might benefit from reading it.  It as relevant today, if not even more,  than it was then.  In the many recent threads on the new laws just passed, there is lots of discussion about what the government can or cannot due, might or might not due, or could do if they had the will, etc.   I feel it is important to be reminded of history and what ACTUALLY HAPPENED as a point of fact.   As has often been said, if we ignore history we are destined to repeat it.   My post was as follows:
      Recently finished reading “Gun Control in the Third Reich-Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State” by Stephen P. Halbrook.  
      I strongly urge anyone who values our freedoms to read it.  Despite the title, it actually covers the period from the birth of the Weimar Republic in 1918 thru the Nazi regime in 1938 and the “Night of Broken Glass”.  
       For me, what is most striking about this book are the parallels between what took place then, and the gun rights challenges we face in the present times.  
       To name a few examples taken directly from various sections of the book:
      • Vague firearms laws that were harshly enforced 
      • Decree(s) requiring the surrender of all firearms and ammunition else punishment of X years in prison 
      • During the timeline covered by  the book;  possession of a firearm or ammunition was also punishable by being arrested, shot on the spot, or being sent to concentration camps.
      • Entire populations being designated as “undesirable” or “unreliable” and banned from possession of firearms. This included not only the Jews but also anyone labeled, for example, as a gypsy or a communist.
      • Forced Registration.   Before Hitler came to power, the government assured that these records would be protected and remain private.  Guess what.  Subsequently the Nazi’s later took control of these records and used them to further confiscate and persecute gun owners.
      • Mass confiscations
      • Needing to convince the local authorities of your need for a firearm and obtain their approval (sound familiar?)
      • Manufacture and importation of arms severely limited.
      • Preventing sporting clubs from providing instruction or training to their members.  Later,  such clubs and associations  were banned and/or  taken over by the government.
      • Massive police raids, house to house searches, and confiscation of “military” weapons from civilians.
      • Need for a license to acquire a firearm or ammunition whether the transaction is commercial or private.
      • Trade in firearms prohibited at annual fairs, shooting competitions,and other events.
      • Government officials and police exempted from most of these onerous laws.
       And so on. 
      As has often been said; “History Repeats Itself”.    This is more than reason enough for us to remain ever vigilant to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.
    • By PD2K
      NRA has an auto template that sends your rep an email opposing the proposed new NJ gun laws:
      Mods please move if I posted in the wrong forum. Oh and sorry if this has been posted already.
    • By NJGF
      I have linked to an excellent article that outlines the "gun control debate".
      It should provide lots of good information that can be used when discussing gun control.
      Understanding the gun debate, part 1
      By Massad Ayoob
    • By 9X19
      Just voted no for more restrictions.
    • By Midwest
      Puerto Ricans can now carry firearms without a permit and the firearms registry has been eliminated.  And there are no more licensing requirements to purchase. From what the article says, it looks just regular Federal Law takes precedence. This has all the makings of a landmark victory.
      I posted this here because it is current gun law and perhaps it might have bearing (or influence) on New Jersey in some way in the future. The politicians in NJ can't keep all these outdated and draconian gun laws in place and keep denying the right to carry without it legally coming back and biting them in the ass sometime in the future (in my opinion). Congratulations to our friends in Puerto Rico.
      "A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed.

      As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, "there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations." LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR)."
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics