Jump to content
gunforhire

THURSDAY: NJ SENATE COMMITTEE TO HEAR BILL BANNING SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME!

Recommended Posts

THURSDAY: NJ SENATE COMMITTEE
TO HEAR BILL BANNING SECOND AMENDMENT
RIGHTS INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME!

Thurs: Bill Bans 2A Rights Inside Your Own Home! - Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs

On Thursday, December 9, at 1:00 p.m., the New Jersey Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear S3757 – the so-called “safe storage” of firearms bill which severely disrupts the right to self-defense inside the home explicitly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case (S3757 prevents rapid deployment of firearms for self-defense in an emergency).
 

PLEASE EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE S 3757.  CLICK HERE TO COPY AND PASTE THE EMAIL LIST OF EVERY SENATOR TO YOUR EMAIL PROGRAM.

No one disputes that gun owners have an obligation to ensure that unauthorized persons cannot access their firearms.  But instead of mandating that as an objective and leaving accomplishment of that objective to the discretion of gun owners based on their own unique circumstances, this ill-conceived bill imposes an absurd, one-size-fits-all totalitarian mandate to keep guns unloaded and locked up inside the home, and to keep ammunition separately locked up inside the home, except when “in use” – an utterly undefined term that will surely be interpreted to exclude everything except target practice.

So in an emergency, you will need to (1) get to your safe or lockbox, (2) unlock it, (3) retrieve your firearm, (4) get to your other separate lockbox, (5) unlock it, (6) retrieve your ammunition, (7) load your magazine or firearm, (8) insert your magazine into your firearm, and (9) use your firearm to defend yourself and your family, if you are still even alive by then.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg in this transparent attempt to block established Second Amendment rights inside the home.  Below is a fuller list (you can also click here to see gun lawyer Evan Nappen’s detailed legal analysis)

-Blocks the exercise of Second Amendment rights inside the home.

-Imposes an absurd, unconstitutional, one-size-fits-all “solution” to the problem of preventing unauthorized persons from accessing your firearms.

-Exception for firearms “in use” is completely undefined, and applies ONLY to firearms, NOT ammunition, so there is NO exception for firearms AND ammunition used together.

-Bans storage of LOADED firearms in a safe or lockbox.  They must be stored unloaded, and the ammunition must be stored in a separate lockbox.  Forget being able to deploy your firearms in an emergency.

-Subjects gun owners to criminal penalties if they do not comply fully with this legislation and bad acts are committed with their firearms by others.

-Forces gun owners to perform community service to anti-gun organizations if they do not comply fully with this legislation.

-Terminates gun rights and allows for seizure and forfeiture of guns, ID cards and permits for repeated failure to comply with the legislation.

-Applies to ALL firearms, even antique and black powder guns.

-Applies specifically and ONLY to LEGAL firearms owners.  Criminals and those ILLEGALLY possessing firearms and ammunition are NOT INCLUDED in these requirements!

-Prevents gun shops, gun dealers, gunsmiths, target ranges, and museums from conventionally displaying firearms or ammunition for viewing, rental, or purchase.  Everything must be in a lockbox or safe.

-Misleading language conceals what is in fact a ban on having loaded firearms at one’s place of business, farms, ranches, or other premises under the owner’s control.

-Law enforcement, military, and security personnel are NOT exempt from this legislation.

Additionally, the dangers of one-size-fits-all, so-called “safe storage” mandates are not speculative or hyperbolic and have previously proven to be real.  The tragic case of the Carpenter family in Merced, California is especially pertinent.  The families’ firearms were locked up and inaccessible under that state’s storage laws.  While the parents were out, a crazed murderer broke into the home and began stabbing the children to death with a pitchfork.  One of the older teenage daughters, who survived, was trained in firearms use but she could not access the guns because California’s laws made them inaccessible to her.  She later testified that she desperately wanted to access the stored guns to defend her siblings and herself, but couldn’t because of California’s laws.

S3757 is the worst type of legislation that can be concocted.  It is poorly conceived, misguided, violates established U.S. law, and interferes with everyone’s sacrosanct right of self-defense. It will result in the death or serious injury of honest citizens who are blocked from accessing their firearms when they need them most. There is a much simpler, fairer, more flexible solution to the issue (task gun owners to keep their firearms from unauthorized persons, impose consequences if they don’t). Tell Senators to vote NO on S3757!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having decided to let armed criminals roam repeatedly unabated in the streets, the Democrats now want to allow them to run unabated in your home.

Do we really need to know any more?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

soooo....does that mean that we no longer have the right to carry about our home/property or our fixed place of business?

To my eyes, it didn't seem to apply to that... but then I read Nappen's more detailed explanation (linked in the orig post) - he argued that it would indeed interfere with carry at your home or business!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, the DELAY that all of these new roadblocks would cause if someone was smashing through your front door is the most egregious part of this. As @45Doll alluded, it's like they actually WANT to protect the criminals breaking into people's homes even if it means that the innocent home owners die as a result (as they're scrambling to try to protect themselves and their families). That's just sick. And I say that with no hyperbole. These folks aren't proposing this bill out of ignorance. They're not doing it because they don't understand, for instance, how home invasions happen in only seconds. I used to think it was ignorance - I afforded them the benefit of the doubt. But, after years of watching stupid bill after stupid bill - all targeting the law-abiding gun owner and never targeting the criminals - I've regrettably come to the conclusion that they propose these things because they hate gun owners and what they represent, plain and simple. 

So, in light of that, I hesitate to focus on this next admittedly more minor point... but I didn't see it mentioned in the ANJRPC write-ups, so I'll throw it out there. The bill is talking about "firearms" in general, so both handguns and long guns. Well, how many people can afford locked gun safes/containers that are sized for long guns?  That's why many people avail themselves of various types of locking devices - like cable locks, trigger locks and similar (including those wall-mounted locks that clamp around the trigger). Well, I'm pretty sure those would not qualify as a "safe" or a "container" which is the wording specified in the bill. So, therefore, this bill also seems to eradicate entire classes of locking devices, doesn't it? The most affordable types, too! It seems like it's clearly discriminating against a gun owner of lesser economic means. Yet another aspect of this bill that seems ridiculously punitive towards the law-abiding gun owner. 

These people have lost their minds. There needs to be another lawsuit obviously.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly all the points cited. Unfortunately, all of this sounds like "common sense" to people who don't know anything about guns, gun laws, or home protection. It is similar to telling people to keep their fire extinguishers in a locked safe at all times. Would that make sense? Absolutely not! Allowing a minor to access a loaded gun is already a crime!

The cost of safes is not a minor point at all. Any additional cost that could lead to making guns prohibitively expensive is a win in these politicians' books.

In NYC, if I remember correctly, not locking your guns correctly can carry a jail sentence of 30 days. Meanwhile I've seen people let out of central booking with essentially a "stay out of trouble" for carrying guns illegally.

I remember once some family members were attacked in NY and called the police. The police told them it's a good thing they didn't fight back or they'd get arrested too! That is exactly what would happen here. The DA would say, "Well, you had all the time in the world to unlock your gun and your ammo, so your life was NOT in danger." On the chance that you do survive a violent home invasion.

Oh it make me sick to my stomach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bill should make crystal clear to anyone who still doubts their motive. They want to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms in this state, period. If it means we and our families become helpless victims in our own homes, so be it, they don’t care.  This is persecution, plain and simple.  This, as well as the other proposed  laws in his package, brings the death by a thousand cuts we have already been enduring to yet another level. They play us as fools. For example,  floating mention of safe storage requirements in press conferences, then we find out the firearms need to be in the safes UNLOADED, no less. (Fwiw, I have grandkids.  I therefore already have all my firearms in various safes. And Peel, as you stated, safes are expensive.)

Given this is a forum on the Internet, I will not state publicly what I personally will do or not do with respect to complying with this should it pass. What I will say is that there are likely many who will simply say fxxk it, it is a bridge too far, they will not comply. And once they (an otherwise decent law abiding citizen) make the mental transition to living as a criminal in waiting, then why comply with any of the other egregious and draconian firearms laws they have already or will be passing. 

This my friends is what the evolution of tyranny looks like. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

This bill should make crystal clear to anyone who still doubts their motive. They want to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms in this state, period. If it means we and our families become helpless victims in our own homes, so be it, they don’t care.  This is persecution, plain and simple.  This, as well as the other proposed  laws in his package, brings the death by a thousand cuts we have already been enduring to yet another level. They play us as fools. For example,  floating mention of safe storage requirements in press conferences, then we find out the firearms need to be in the safes UNLOADED, no less. (Fwiw, I have grandkids.  I therefore already have all my firearms in various safes. And Peel, as you stated, safes are expensive.)

Given this is a forum on the Internet, I will not state publicly what I personally will do or not do with respect to complying with this should it pass. What I will say is that there are likely many who will simply say fxxk it, it is a bridge too far, they will not comply. And once they (an otherwise decent law abiding citizen) make the mental transition to living as a criminal in waiting, then why comply with any of the other egregious and draconian firearms laws they have already or will be passing. 

This my friends is what the evolution of tyranny looks like. 

Logic dies with this bill, not that logic hasn't already been badly tortured and beaten with previous bills and laws here.  A safe, by its name, is just that.  If a safe works for a legislator's stash of cash from gun control groups, then it works for my gun.  If there is that much worry of a safe with a firearm being compromised, logic dictates that the second "safe" with ammunition is just as easily compromised. 

 

On a side note, it is interesting and very assumptive that one only needs a "container" for ammunition assuming a container is small and portable, such as in the transportation exemption.  It will either be more expensive...or creative... to lock up every cartridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requiring storage in such a way that the firearm is not available for defensive use in the home was found unconstitutional in Heller, right?

If the NJ legislature pass this bill, can they not be pursued for breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

How would that work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Requiring storage in such a way that the firearm is not available for defensive use in the home was found unconstitutional in Heller, right?

If the NJ legislature pass this bill, can they not be pursued for breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

How would that work? 

2/3 of what they've already done regarding firearms laws they have already broken their oaths. multiple times over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Requiring storage in such a way that the firearm is not available for defensive use in the home was found unconstitutional in Heller, right?

If the NJ legislature pass this bill, can they not be pursued for breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

How would that work? 

There has to be a court system that is willing to rule on the case.  That worked in Pennsylvania when Pittsburgh knowingly passed laws more restrictive than the state law.  Sadly, some lawmakers pass laws knowing they are illegal, but appear to get satisfaction in watching the court system wait what feels  like a long time to rule on it.  Isn't that magazine restriction case in California still in some level of level limbo?

No New Jersey court is going to rule in our favor, but that's just stating the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, father-of-three said:

There has to be a court system that is willing to rule on the case.  That worked in Pennsylvania when Pittsburgh knowingly passed laws more restrictive than the state law.  Sadly, some lawmakers pass laws knowing they are illegal, but appear to get satisfaction in watching the court system wait what feels  like a long time to rule on it.  Isn't that magazine restriction case in California still in some level of level limbo?

No New Jersey court is going to rule in our favor, but that's just stating the obvious.

i think the nutty ninth recently upheld the commiefornia mag ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2021 at 8:22 PM, 1LtCAP said:

soooo....does that mean that we no longer have the right to carry about our home/property or our fixed place of business?

You can carry.  The firearm.  But the ammo must stay locked up or your in violation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, father-of-three said:

That's what I assumed, but I wasn't sure.

i'm still not, ,cause i think there's a line in the statute that says something on the order of "nothing shall be interpreted to prevent" or something similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone tripped over themselves with glee celebrating Sweeney’s loss. But the power vacuum of conservative might he leaves in the South will open the gates to Hell. 
 

Most of these new initiatives were unveiled in April. All Murphy needed was another tragedy to grab national attention. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FairbanksRusty said:

Everyone tripped over themselves with glee celebrating Sweeney’s loss. But the power vacuum of conservative might he leaves in the South will open the gates to Hell. 
 

Most of these new initiatives were unveiled in April. All Murphy needed was another tragedy to grab national attention. 
 

Lame duck session - Sweeney is still in power until January.  He can still potentially stop this by refusing to hear the bills in the Senate.  Will he though?  Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2021 at 8:58 AM, oldguysrule649 said:

This bill should make crystal clear to anyone who still doubts their motive. They want to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms in this state, period. If it means we and our families become helpless victims in our own homes, so be it, they don’t care.  This is persecution, plain and simple.  This, as well as the other proposed  laws in his package, brings the death by a thousand cuts we have already been enduring to yet another level. They play us as fools. For example,  floating mention of safe storage requirements in press conferences, then we find out the firearms need to be in the safes UNLOADED, no less. (Fwiw, I have grandkids.  I therefore already have all my firearms in various safes. And Peel, as you stated, safes are expensive.)

Given this is a forum on the Internet, I will not state publicly what I personally will do or not do with respect to complying with this should it pass. What I will say is that there are likely many who will simply say fxxk it, it is a bridge too far, they will not comply. And once they (an otherwise decent law abiding citizen) make the mental transition to living as a criminal in waiting, then why comply with any of the other egregious and draconian firearms laws they have already or will be passing. 

This my friends is what the evolution of tyranny looks like. 

This! i could not have said better myself. I can't even have the means to protect myself and my loved ones from criminals on the very property i sweat, blead and cried for? The same property that i pay exorbitant taxes for? I bring up the same question you do, at what point will people question their own compliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, contigo100 said:

at what point will people question their own compliance?

I think most people decided to comply or not the second they saw this new bill! Yeah, I am going to lock all my guns in one safe and all my ammo and unloaded mags in another safe.......I DON'T THINK SO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, contigo100 said:

How would the state enforce this? think about it! besides the fact that it clearly violates Heller in every possible way. I have no doubt NJ will pass these draconian laws, but enforcing in-home laws is another story. 

They won't have to. They know law abiding citizens will comply. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2021 at 2:03 AM, Mrs. Peel said:

Frankly, the DELAY that all of these new roadblocks would cause if someone was smashing through your front door is the most egregious part of this. As @45Doll alluded, it's like they actually WANT to protect the criminals breaking into people's homes even if it means that the innocent home owners die as a result (as they're scrambling to try to protect themselves and their families). That's just sick. And I say that with no hyperbole. These folks aren't proposing this bill out of ignorance. They're not doing it because they don't understand, for instance, how home invasions happen in only seconds. I used to think it was ignorance - I afforded them the benefit of the doubt. But, after years of watching stupid bill after stupid bill - all targeting the law-abiding gun owner and never targeting the criminals - I've regrettably come to the conclusion that they propose these things because they hate gun owners and what they represent, plain and simple. 

So, in light of that, I hesitate to focus on this next admittedly more minor point... but I didn't see it mentioned in the ANJRPC write-ups, so I'll throw it out there. The bill is talking about "firearms" in general, so both handguns and long guns. Well, how many people can afford locked gun safes/containers that are sized for long guns?  That's why many people avail themselves of various types of locking devices - like cable locks, trigger locks and similar (including those wall-mounted locks that clamp around the trigger). Well, I'm pretty sure those would not qualify as a "safe" or a "container" which is the wording specified in the bill. So, therefore, this bill also seems to eradicate entire classes of locking devices, doesn't it? The most affordable types, too! It seems like it's clearly discriminating against a gun owner of lesser economic means. Yet another aspect of this bill that seems ridiculously punitive towards the law-abiding gun owner. 

These people have lost their minds. There needs to be another lawsuit obviously.

And because they love to infringe on your rights. 

  • Like 1

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • Looks like the insider billionaires and others selling back in November-December timed it perfectly.
    • This market makes no sense, even before the recent volatility. Up is down, left is right, black is white, dogs are cats. I follow the market and the business news every day, and it's totally nuts. It makes my head hurt. Since there apparently isn't going to be any additional "injections" by Uncle Sugar, which kept the market propped up the past two years, the sugar high has burned off.... you know what happens after that....
    • This is a brand new, never used or installed set of high-quality  Wood AK stocks for Milled receivers finished in Ishmash Red. It is not refinished wood.  In addition to 7.62  it will also fit milled receivers for 5.56AK.  It is not designed for stamped receivers. It comes with new screws that you will use, if you are upgrading for a polymer-type stock set, do not use those screws.  It is fabricated to the look of  Soviet classic wood furniture circa 1960's and designed to fit milled receivers. It will fit older as well as new milled receivers, for example,  it will fit any Arsenal Style Milled receiver. It is possible that very minor fitting with a file may be required depending on your receiver. Note: Finish on all stock pieces absolutely matches. Due to lighting and camera angle it may not appear so in every picture, but they match. Free Ship. $375 First I will take it and also PM me wins Zelle, Money Order of Check Steve
    • Things could get fugly soon.  Especially if Russia decides to have a "minor incursion" into Ukraine sometime soon. Fasten your seat belts.  We may be in for some turbulence ahead.
    • Defense Distributed at it again. You have another opportunity to build your own. Enter the Ghost Gunner 3 The Ghost Gunner 3 is a 3 Axis CNC machine that can take a metal block and create a lower receiver in a relatively short period. You can then assemble that lower into a completed firearm without it being registered.  Since the only part needed to create these homemade firearms is a block of metal (pictured below), it would be entirely impossible for the ATF to regulate these without an act of congress.  While the anti-gun politicians pat themselves on the back for "stopping the proliferation of privately made firearms," Defense Distributed was hard at work crafting a tool that empowers citizens to expand their 2nd amendment rights and makes regulation irrelevant.  I was ecstatic to see the Ghost Gunner 3 here at SHOT Show in Las Vegas this week, and I'm excited to see what Defense Distributed does next.  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/impossible-regulate-ghost-gunner-introduces-new-0-receiver
×
×
  • Create New...