Jump to content
Krdshrk

4/15/21 - Murphy's dropping more "Gun safety reforms"

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, YankeeSC said:

Their plan is working ...

Without the option of concealed carry why repeatedly go through the process of begging the state for PP permits once your HD weapons are squared away?

Handguns aren't the most enjoyable firearms for recreational shooting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FDHog said:

t's funny cause we have a gay female mayor and a pretty liberal town council. Guess the police chief doesn't care for their views too much.

Enjoy it while it lasts, that can change with a new chief of PD. Especially in a left leaning town.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bomber said:

Without the option of concealed carry why repeatedly go through the process of begging the state for PP permits once your HD weapons are squared away?

Handguns aren't the most enjoyable firearms for recreational shooting. 

Because there is always one more Smith to collect.......or HP, or 1911 etc.

Actually, IMO you should be shooting your handguns more than rifles, odds are you will need that more that the long gun...

Personally, I find very little to no joy in shooting AR/AK type - very bleh, but that is for me.

Ironically, for the folks shooting steel at 100yds with the AR to hear the twang, shoot would be easier for them to get a plate and a hammer than wasting all that ammo...  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 12:39 PM, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Because there is always one more Smith to collect.......or HP, or 1911 etc.

Actually, IMO you should be shooting your handguns more than rifles, odds are you will need that more that the long gun...

I'm not really into collecting anymore, the only thing I want to collect these days is cash.:D

As for handgun practice, again whats the point?  One can only legally be used for SD on your own property or dwelling and it better well be at close range and properly justified or you'll be the one facing charges.    

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Ironically, for the folks shooting steel at 100yds with the AR to hear the twang, shoot would be easier for them to get a plate and a hammer than wasting all that ammo...  :)

I like pinging steel with a handgun at that distance too.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bomber said:

I'm not really into collecting anymore, the only thing I want to collect these days is cash.:D

As for handgun practice, again whats the point?  One can only legally be used for SD on your own property or dwelling and it better well be as close range and properly justified or you'll be the one heading to prison.    

Yep, I can no longer conceal carry, combined with current handgun ammo prices it's pretty much unrealistic to do any heavy handgun training. I have since gone back to rifle and shotgun training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

"The bill requires the legal owner of a firearm to store or secure a firearm that is not in use, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container. Downey said it also mandates that the legal owner of the firearm store the ammunition separately in a securely locked box or container."

Please define "not in use" in the home?  The whole logic of this law is flawed and just moronic.  If i bought a gun for self defense at home and the ammo is not readily available why even have one? Just ridiculous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NJRulz said:

"The bill requires the legal owner of a firearm to store or secure a firearm that is not in use, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container. Downey said it also mandates that the legal owner of the firearm store the ammunition separately in a securely locked box or container."

Please define "not in use" in the home?  The whole logic of this law is flawed and just moronic.  If i bought a gun for self defense at home and the ammo is not readily available why even have one? Just ridiculous.

 

Just more bullshit proposed to make their constituents feel good.  If they really wanted to do something, they should look into the reasons behind firearms being used in violent crime, not whether dad has a loaded mag in the pistol.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NJRulz said:

"The bill requires the legal owner of a firearm to store or secure a firearm that is not in use, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container. Downey said it also mandates that the legal owner of the firearm store the ammunition separately in a securely locked box or container."

Please define "not in use" in the home?  The whole logic of this law is flawed and just moronic.  If i bought a gun for self defense at home and the ammo is not readily available why even have one? Just ridiculous.

 

The alternate summary of the bill is as follows:

"This bill will directly contribute to the wealth of our lawyer buddies as the people of New Jersey reach into their own pockets to pay lawyers to file suit for an injunction against the terms of this bill on the grounds that it is in direct contradiction to the findings of SCOTUS in Heller. As a result of this suit the AG's office will pump vast sums into more or our lawyer buddies' pockets from the public purse to argue against the obvious unconstitutionality of this bill. A secondary effect will be that other parties will pay even more money to yet more of our lawyer buddies to file amicus briefs. A tertiary effect is that more people who are merely exercising their right to self defense in the home will be prosecuted (more payments to our lawyer buddies to defend against charges - woohoo!) and be sentenced subject to minimum sentences and our prison system buddies will also be paid extra funds from the public purse."

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

The alternate summary of the bill is as follows:

"This bill will directly contribute to the wealth of our lawyer buddies as the people of New Jersey reach into their own pockets to pay lawyers to file suit for an injunction against the terms of this bill on the grounds that it is in direct contradiction to the findings of SCOTUS in Heller. As a result of this suit the AG's office will pump vast sums into more or our lawyer buddies' pockets from the public purse to argue against the obvious unconstitutionality of this bill. A secondary effect will be that other parties will pay even more money to yet more of our lawyer buddies to file amicus briefs. A tertiary effect is that more people who are merely exercising their right to self defense in the home will be prosecuted (more payments to our lawyer buddies to defend against charges - woohoo!) and be sentenced subject to minimum sentences and our prison system buddies will also be paid extra funds from the public purse."

Unfortunately you aren't wrong. The way things work have pathologically incentivized a bunch of bad stuff, and this is one of the more obscure mechanisms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NJRulz said:

"The bill requires the legal owner of a firearm to store or secure a firearm that is not in use, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container. Downey said it also mandates that the legal owner of the firearm store the ammunition separately in a securely locked box or container."

Please define "not in use" in the home?  The whole logic of this law is flawed and just moronic.  If i bought a gun for self defense at home and the ammo is not readily available why even have one? Just ridiculous.

 

seems to me that this can/does go counter to my still not-stolen right to carry at my home.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way they are phrasing it reminds me of the current transportation lanugage.  When we go to the range you need to keep the gun separate from the ammo in a lock container or locked in the trunk.

On GFH Radio a couple years back, Anthony had Loretta Weinberg on the show and she virtually admitted they intentional write up the laws in ambiguous fashion and then let the courts decide what they should be.  This is not what the founding intended of course.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a law that requires legislators to sleep with a 15 mil plastic bag covering their head and secured around the neck with duct tape?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Just as reasonable as the proposed gun storage bill, which I believe is unconstitutional on its face as it runs counter to the SCOTUS ruling in Heller.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NJRulz said:

"The bill requires the legal owner of a firearm to store or secure a firearm that is not in use, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container. Downey said it also mandates that the legal owner of the firearm store the ammunition separately in a securely locked box or container."

Thus rendering the firearm essentially useless in a home defense situation. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NJRulz said:

Please define "not in use" in the home?  The whole logic of this law is flawed and just moronic.  If i bought a gun for self defense at home and the ammo is not readily available why even have one? Just ridiculous.

It's ironic that the liberals suddenly do want to regulate what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom.   At least if it involves a consenting adult with a biometric bedside gun locker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NJRulz said:

...On GFH Radio a couple years back, Anthony had Loretta Weinberg on the show and she virtually admitted they intentional write up the laws in ambiguous fashion and then let the courts decide what they should be.  This is not what the founding intended of course.  

I remember it differently - Weinberg was addressing Anthony's/Sandy's comment that NJ legislators didn't contemplate whether their laws were unconstitutional before passing them; Weinberg said (paraphrasing) "they're constitutional until a court rules they aren't".

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DirtyDigz said:

I remember it differently - Weinberg was addressing Anthony's/Sandy's comment that NJ legislators didn't contemplate whether their laws were unconstitutional before passing them; Weinberg said (paraphrasing) "they're constitutional until a court rules they aren't".

I stand corrected but you know what I meant.  (Many laws were have are poorly written - not only the gun ones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...