Jump to content
AnthonyG

N.J. senator pushes law to carry handguns

Recommended Posts

Obviously this needs to be brought up again so you people understand that HE IS NOT OUR FLIPPING FRIEND

 

 

This was Chritie before he was a Governor, personally i hate the guy, hes a total piece of crap when it comes to doing the right thing. He talks about how important it is to cut back spending, yet he gives his staff raises for doing nothing productive, in my opinion he is one of those guys who doesnt take his own advice, and believes what he says only applies to every one else. Typical POS politician

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was Chritie before he was a Governor, personally i hate the guy, hes a total piece of crap when it comes to doing the right thing. He talks about how important it is to cut back spending, yet he gives his staff raises for doing nothing productive, in my opinion he is one of those guys who doesnt take his own advice, and believes what he says only applies to every one else. Typical POS politician

 

 

+1 he is a lying fat tub of LARD, its not a matter of IF but WHEN he will throw 2A in NJ under the bus to get votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is shameful, but guess what? Let the folks who can pay to play be the guinea pigs just to get something passed. After we get our foot in the door, that's when you try to let other folks open the door wider. We definitely have to start somewhere, and if money is what it takes, then those who can afford it will have to suck it up for now. Everyone's goal in here is to get CCW, unfortunately, being in NJ means throwing money at it will be part of the solution. :(

 

 

I see a lot of posters saying this...I chose yours cuz i think it's worded the best. :icon_e_biggrin:

 

My issue: everybody that says this makes it sound like NJ does not currently have CCW. Your foot is already in the door with the current law. Take the one step NOW to open it wider by eliminating the "justifiable need" from the existing law. Don't vote this bill in with all of it's other changes in hopes of reducing the $500 fee later.

 

Unless there is something I am missing???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of posters saying this...I chose yours cuz i think it's worded the best. :icon_e_biggrin:

 

My issue: everybody that says this makes it sound like NJ does not currently have CCW. Your foot is already in the door with the current law. Take the one step NOW to open it wider by eliminating the "justifiable need" from the existing law. Don't vote this bill in with all of it's other changes in hopes of reducing the $500 fee later.

 

Unless there is something I am missing???

 

Think of it as baby steps. If the bill did get passed, the fact it's already revising current legislation makes for a sound argument of it being revised again. In NJ nothing is done over night. Hell, if they want money, charge $200 and you'll make more money on the sheer volume of people applying. One thing at a time, making it easier to get permits alone is a huge step.

 

Think of it this way, if you wont spend the money on it just pretend it never happened, and NJ is still a chitty state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this needs to be brought up again so you people understand that HE IS NOT OUR FLIPPING FRIEND

 

Christie1995.jpg

Christie1995001.jpg

 

 

While I agree he isn't really a friend of ours, I also believe he will do what is politically expedient.

 

I believe him supporting the weapons ban was politically expedient for him at that time.

 

I have no problem paying an admin fee (reasonable), but $50 is extremely excessive.

 

I would pony up tho I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of posters saying this...I chose yours cuz i think it's worded the best. :icon_e_biggrin:

 

My issue: everybody that says this makes it sound like NJ does not currently have CCW. Your foot is already in the door with the current law. Take the one step NOW to open it wider by eliminating the "justifiable need" from the existing law. Don't vote this bill in with all of it's other changes in hopes of reducing the $500 fee later.

 

Unless there is something I am missing???

The CCW we have right now is like a place where the doors are open to the public, but you need to know two people on the inside(chief/judge) to guest you in. The option they're presenting us is open to the public, with an expensive entrance fee. We want a place that lets people in for free, but it ain't gonna happen in Jersey. Huge "political contributions" is what it will take to turn things around in NJ. Whether it's donations to SAF or some other org, or donations to several politicians, it all boils down to the mighty dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wake of the Seton Hall student shooting, this article appeared in the Editorial section of the paper today and makes mention of Van Kemp's measure as a possible alternative(?):

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/103908178_Too_many_guns__too_many_victims.html

 

Herald News: Too many guns, too many victims

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Herald News

IT IS AN image that has grown all too familiar to us in recent weeks, and too tragic: the face, on the front page of the newspaper and websites, the photo of another beautiful young person taken away all too soon, killed by violent gunfire.

 

Heaven forbid that we ever become so numbed to such happenings that we fail to be moved by their tragedy.

 

This time the victim was honor student Jessica Moore, 19, a sophomore at Seton Hall University. Law enforcement authorities say she was one of five people shot in what witnesses called an ambush at an off-campus party at a rented house in East Orange. Police believe the gunman was an uninvited guest who came to the after-hours party, was involved in a confrontation, then came back later with a gun and started shooting.

 

Let us not forget: By and large, people who purchase guns legally are law-abiding citizens. They are knowledgeable about the use of firearms and respectful of their power. By and large, it is not these legally purchased guns that are involved in the killing of young people in our urban centers.

 

Still, to view gun violence as an urban problem, a Paterson or Newark problem, is a narrow view. What's needed is a broader, more comprehensive approach statewide, one that tries to focus on New Jersey's gun violence problem, in particular, and secondly, how it is impacted by gun laws, or lack thereof, in other states.

 

We don't know if the legislation introduced by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, provides that overarching view, but perhaps it can be a starting point to a greater discussion.

 

Drew's legislation would allow New Jersey residents to carry handguns if they first go through a vigorous background check, complete courses in firearms safety and the lawful use of force, pass a test and pay an annual $500 fee.

 

The law, loosely based on statutes in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, would serve to relax what is now a pretty strict handgun "carry law" on the books. Significantly, Drew's legislation would do away with current language in the law that says residents must present "a justifiable need to carry a handgun."

 

Van Drew sees the "justifiable need" clause as a needless hindrance to law-abiding handgun owners, and foresees the $500 annual permit fee as a way to add up to $10 million — if 20,000 people pay the fee — to the state's treasury.

 

Gun violence and the changing landscape of gun laws are not mutually exclusive, but they aren't quite the same thing either.

 

The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." On the other hand, we would like to believe that citizens should have a reasonable expectation that they won't be shot simply because they are attending an off-campus party.

 

Certainly, there are no easy answers in regard to gun violence or gun laws, lest they would not be constantly in the news, and sometimes on the very same day.

 

We would like to see a more holistic approach, one that asks hard questions and seeks real answers to violence on our streets but that also protects the rights of lawful gun owners. Perhaps a governmental task force is needed, headed by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, a former sheriff with some expertise in these matters.

 

We know one thing. We cannot go on in the endless cycle we seem to be in, where one young person after another is gunned down, for no apparent reason. Until all New Jersey residents can feel safe, any further investment in our schools or in our infrastructure seems almost beside the point.

 

IT IS AN image that has grown all too familiar to us in recent weeks, and too tragic: the face, on the front page of the newspaper and websites, the photo of another beautiful young person taken away all too soon, killed by violent gunfire.

 

Heaven forbid that we ever become so numbed to such happenings that we fail to be moved by their tragedy.

 

This time the victim was honor student Jessica Moore, 19, a sophomore at Seton Hall University. Law enforcement authorities say she was one of five people shot in what witnesses called an ambush at an off-campus party at a rented house in East Orange. Police believe the gunman was an uninvited guest who came to the after-hours party, was involved in a confrontation, then came back later with a gun and started shooting.

 

Let us not forget: By and large, people who purchase guns legally are law-abiding citizens. They are knowledgeable about the use of firearms and respectful of their power. By and large, it is not these legally purchased guns that are involved in the killing of young people in our urban centers.

 

Still, to view gun violence as an urban problem, a Paterson or Newark problem, is a narrow view. What's needed is a broader, more comprehensive approach statewide, one that tries to focus on New Jersey's gun violence problem, in particular, and secondly, how it is impacted by gun laws, or lack thereof, in other states.

 

We don't know if the legislation introduced by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, provides that overarching view, but perhaps it can be a starting point to a greater discussion.

 

Drew's legislation would allow New Jersey residents to carry handguns if they first go through a vigorous background check, complete courses in firearms safety and the lawful use of force, pass a test and pay an annual $500 fee.

 

The law, loosely based on statutes in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, would serve to relax what is now a pretty strict handgun "carry law" on the books. Significantly, Drew's legislation would do away with current language in the law that says residents must present "a justifiable need to carry a handgun."

 

Van Drew sees the "justifiable need" clause as a needless hindrance to law-abiding handgun owners, and foresees the $500 annual permit fee as a way to add up to $10 million — if 20,000 people pay the fee — to the state's treasury.

 

Gun violence and the changing landscape of gun laws are not mutually exclusive, but they aren't quite the same thing either.

 

The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." On the other hand, we would like to believe that citizens should have a reasonable expectation that they won't be shot simply because they are attending an off-campus party.

 

Certainly, there are no easy answers in regard to gun violence or gun laws, lest they would not be constantly in the news, and sometimes on the very same day.

 

We would like to see a more holistic approach, one that asks hard questions and seeks real answers to violence on our streets but that also protects the rights of lawful gun owners. Perhaps a governmental task force is needed, headed by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, a former sheriff with some expertise in these matters.

 

We know one thing. We cannot go on in the endless cycle we seem to be in, where one young person after another is gunned down, for no apparent reason. Until all New Jersey residents can feel safe, any further investment in our schools or in our infrastructure seems almost beside the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another article about Celebs that carry, and it seems $$ does get you what you need.. :icon_rolleyes:

 

 

Article link, no I don't read PEOPLE, saw the link n another site :-)

 

They might not be dangerous, but they're armed.

 

Seeking an added layer of protection, more high-profile celebrities are seeking permits to carry guns in New York City, according to New York's Daily News.

 

Among the big names licensed to pack heat: Marc Anthony, Robert De Niro, Donald Trump, and his son, Donald Jr., Mets third baseman David Wright, and Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart.

 

Anthony, 42, has a special permit that allows him to carry a loaded weapon in the city, and has a similar permit for Nassau County, where he and Jennifer Lopez have a $2 million home in Brookville.

 

One reason for the rise in interest seems to be the vulnerability some celebrities feel in the Internet age, where so much personal information can be accessed online. "They can get their own security, but with the Internet, it is much easier to find people," attorney John Skylar Chambers tells the News. "They don't want to find someone on their lawn at five in the morning."

 

Gun permit aren't easy, or cheap, to get. Applicants must show that they often carry large amounts of cash or valuables, or that they are being threatened in some way. And the application alone costs a nonrefundable $340.

 

Despite the rise in applications from celebrities, the number of permits issued in New York City is actually down by 2.4 percent this year, to 2,093.

 

I like one of the comments, "Remember folks, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very disingenuous the way the author links two disparate things.

 

The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." On the other hand, we would like to believe that citizens should have a reasonable expectation that they won't be shot simply because they are attending an off-campus party.

 

The two are not related. When Nicholas Welch and Marcus Bascus arrived at Seton Hall to that party, armed with a gun, they had a reasonable expectation that no one at the party would have a gun. Legally armed citizens do not shoot people at a higher rate than criminals. In fact, as a group, concealed carry holders are much less likely to commit ANY crime. As shown by those bitter clingers in fly-over states, concealed carry does not turn the world into a shooting gallery. Folks in Fly-over states are routinely derided as ignorant hicks by the enlightened Intelligentsia in NJ. Are these same ignorant hicks somehow able to resist shooting a fellow human at the slightest insult where the Parvenu in NJ would turn into a bunch of trigger happy Charlies?

 

Perhaps a governmental task force is needed, headed by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, a former sheriff with some expertise in these matters.

 

Sure, more government waste on research is the answer. Only in NJ. One needs to look at the states that have implimented CCW to find your answers. Crying Bryan and others of his ilk in this state are unable and unwilling to see that the results aren't as they would predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you were listening to NJ101.5 this morning, but Jim Gearhart was talking about this. I called in and spoke briefly with Jim. Basically was informing him that we already have to go through the background check and all of the bs to get the FID already, and that the fee was crazy when Utah & Florida CCW's are so much less. Also gave a little shout out to the NJ2AS & this site :)

Edited by Krdshrk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you were listening to NJ101.5 this morning, but Jim Gearhart was talking about this. I called in and spoke briefly with Jim. Basically was informing him that we already have to go through the background check and all of the bs to get the FID already, and that the fee was crazy when Utah & Florida CCW's are so much less. Also gave a little shout out to the NJ2AS & this site :)

Sorry I missed it. I can't stand him. I like Dennis the best. I miss Dena (local girl).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definetly snuck up on me as I'm kind of shocked to even hear talk of CCW for the public in NJ and I can't help but sort of consider that good news (by NJ gun owner standards).

 

Once I get past that, reality sets in and I can't help but think that this would really be putting the cart before the horse. I don't see how these CCW licenses could really be worth more than the paper they are written on when the state's default stance is still to strip away all rights of gun ownership by default, then only conceed to a limited return of the "rights" through a bunch of BS exceptions.

 

 

Also, could the passing of a deliberately punative fee associated with legal gun use serve as a springboard to taxing things like ammunition based off some warped anti-gun logic that legal gun owners have some obligation to compensate the goverment for some imagined social "cost" of their gun ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it can and it likely will.

 

This $500 fee is nothing more than GUN CONTROL bill disguised as a "pro gun" bill.

 

Aside from the fact that it can still be denied on good character, aside from the fact that there's still a duty to retreat in public, aside from the fact that the fee is exponentially higher than even the most expensive CCW permits in the country, this bill is nothing but a horrible idea. It gives the illusion of CCW but in reality they are simply trading one form of discrimination for another. The legislature KNOWS that "justifiable need" will not hold up in a lawsuit. So rather than be sued, they are going to trade it for this astronomical fee that serves the same discriminatory purpose. It will buy them another decade of gun control, and if anything, the fee may even go higher. I can just imagine some spokesman for the NJSP saying the $500 isn't enough in fees and it needs to go up.

 

If people really care about CCW, the 31 of you willing to dish out $500 a year should instead donate $500 a year to SAF. Their lawyers will show NJ how things are done.

 

And that's Change you can believe in.

So, How much have YOU donated to SAF????? Simple fact is that they will USE this to prove that CCCW isnt "Wanted" here. Once it's IN, then you can go after the Prohibitive charge as being unconstitutional, and exclusive. But hey Dont worry, the rest of us will carry your water for you, and Pay out our $500.00 as well as Donating to NRA/ILA and SAF.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest megaman

So, How much have YOU donated to SAF????? Simple fact is that they will USE this to prove that CCCW isnt "Wanted" here. Once it's IN, then you can go after the Prohibitive charge as being unconstitutional, and exclusive. But hey Dont worry, the rest of us will carry your water for you, and Pay out our $500.00 as well as Donating to NRA/ILA and SAF.

 

 

Hell yeah Pipes, I too would sadly/gladly pay the $500 for the slackers...then debate it once I have the .45 on the hip and out of sight...I happily fund the folks that fight for this, as it is my right that needs to be restored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, How much have YOU donated to SAF????? Simple fact is that they will USE this to prove that CCCW isnt "Wanted" here. Once it's IN, then you can go after the Prohibitive charge as being unconstitutional, and exclusive. But hey Dont worry, the rest of us will carry your water for you, and Pay out our $500.00 as well as Donating to NRA/ILA and SAF.

Is this not a double edged sword? If everyone runs out and pays this outrageous fee, they will say. Why change the price if they are willing to pay it? No one is asking to be carried and it is kind of insulting to assume so. I hump my own gear.

 

I think this is the first scrap from the table and we are too eager ot just take it and not fight for more. We have nothing now, why settle for less than we deserve. The State is broke and Lawsuits are probable. They are trying to get out in front on the issue, because they know we have The Constitution on our side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting on their terms puts you in a weak position. Do you think they would even offer if they though they had a leg to stand on? Where does the precedent end? 5K to take the 5th if your on the stand? 20k if you want to write an article? $100 every time you want to go to churche? $1000 to not be a slave? There is a significant difference between an administrative fee and the state profitering on our rights!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just kinda boggled that a DEMOCRAT proposed this... but oh wait.... it's for the money... nevermind.

 

No one has seemed to chime in on the politics involved here. This Senator is from a predominantly Republican district. A quick check of his voting record shows he never saw a tax he wasn't in favor of or a tax cut he was against. If he wants to be re-elected he needs to champion a conservative cause. He throws this out, votes for it if it comes to the floor, knowing it won't pass, and can say he's for gun rights. if and when NJ becomes a shall issue state this guy will take credit for getting the ball rolling. Many are fooled by this and champion this guy as a 2A activist because he does this and owns two guns? Doesn't Feinstein, Boxer, and/or Pelosi have a carry permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference would be for NJ to adopt a moderate version of the Castle Doctrine that would not require us to retreat from our own home and exempt us from civil lawsuits as well.

 

As for the CCW...$500 is steep. I think it is punitive. So they recognize there is a need to level the playing field (give law abiding citizens protection against the thugs with weapons)but will only give it to us for a high price. Translation: We recognize there is a problem and you could be in severe danger, but you have to pay to remain alive. Pathetic. There should certainly be a fee to attend courses and qualify and other administrative work, but $500 seems steep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting on their terms puts you in a weak position. Do you think they would even offer if they though they had a leg to stand on? Where does the precedent end? 5K to take the 5th if your on the stand? 20k if you want to write an article? $100 every time you want to go to churche? $1000 to not be a slave? There is a significant difference between an administrative fee and the state profitering on our rights!

You are correct..however once the law is in place, you have a CLEAR Avenue to pursue a Civil Rights violation case agaisn the state because of the ridiculous fee.

  • Like 2

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...