raz-0 1,256 Posted September 21, 2012 A firearm is worthless unless it has ammunition ...... If you want to effectively ban guns..ban the ammo..... This is a first step...then they will tax it like cigarettes etc..... They already tax it. Excise tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downr@nge 22 Posted September 21, 2012 OPPOSED! This one here makes the "Lautenberg" statute even worse! a crime involving domestic violence as defined in section 3 of P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-19), whether or not armed with or having in his possession a weapon enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1; As it is now, you cannot be "Lautenberged" if you are convicted of a domestic violence crime WITHOUT A WEAPON. IIRC, it only affects you if you were convicted and you used a weapon. This is dangerous because restraining orders are often abused and used as tools/weapons of leverage in separations. Basically, anyone can go into a police station and accuse someone of doing some act of domestic violence against them WITHOUT ANY PROOF and get a restraining order. The standard of evidence is INCREDIBLY and unfairly low to get a restraining order; in fact, all it takes is a the word of the accuser and a half way believable story. On the other hand, the threshold for the accused to prove he DID NOTHING WRONG, is MUCH higher; which is UNFAIR. This new legislation should be thrown out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Njgunowner 2 Posted September 21, 2012 This almost feels like a response to the earlier failed bill where they tried to give the AG the right to outright ban certain types of ammo in the "interest of public safety" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 21, 2012 common sense dictates that laws do not stop criminals... common sense then therefore dictates that laws govern law abiding people... common sense then confirms what Paul stated.. the notion behind all this has nothing to do with taking ammo from criminals.. ^Right there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KpdPipes 388 Posted September 21, 2012 It is i would assume. Maybe this is a way for them to make arrests for possession of ammo but without having the actual firearm on them. I can see why they are pushing for this. I am actually not 100% against it, as long as it isnt going to restrict someone that should be able to possess the ammo. it it would stop at that it might not be so bad......that said, I dont trust the "Brain Trust" down in Trenton an inch, and as Paul said I see this as just more Harassment to use against Retailers that sell Ammunition Online, to eventually ban all mail-order Ammo sales, FOPA be damned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KpdPipes 388 Posted September 21, 2012 OPPOSED! This one here makes the "Lautenberg" statute even worse! [/font][/color] As it is now, you cannot be "Lautenberged" if you are convicted of a domestic violence crime WITHOUT A WEAPON. IIRC, it only affects you if you were convicted and you used a weapon. This is dangerous because restraining orders are often abused and used as tools/weapons of leverage in separations. Basically, anyone can go into a police station and accuse someone of doing some act of domestic violence against them WITHOUT ANY PROOF and get a restraining order. The standard of evidence is INCREDIBLY and unfairly low to get a restraining order; in fact, all it takes is a the word of the accuser and a half way believable story. On the other hand, the threshold for the accused to prove he DID NOTHING WRONG, is MUCH higher; which is UNFAIR. This new legislation should be thrown out. You always COULD be "Lautenberged" weapon used or not. ANY Final RO made you a Prohibited person. ANY Misemeanor Assault (DV) conviction, even just Simple Assault makes you a Prohibited person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted September 21, 2012 Doesn't the law already require an FID to buy ammo? Yes. Can people convicted of any felony on this list obtain such a card? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Qel Hoth 33 Posted September 21, 2012 Doesn't the law already require an FID to buy ammo? Yes. Can people convicted of any felony on this list obtain such a card? No. Only to recieve handgun ammo, and only to receive it in NJ. it is perfectly legal to buy handgun ammo in PA and bring it back without an FPID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted September 21, 2012 Doesn't the law already require an FID to buy ammo? Yes. Can people convicted of any felony on this list obtain such a card? No. Only to recieve handgun ammo, and only to receive it in NJ. it is perfectly legal to buy handgun ammo in PA and bring it back without an FPID. And there you have it in a nutshell Asm Johnson wants to criminalize the bangers in Trenton from walking over the bridge to Morrisville (take your pick of Delaware River town-pairs) to buy ammo for their 'fun and games' here in the PRNJ. Asm Johnson - ARE YOU STUPID?? Haven't you learned that criminals BY DEFINITION do not obey laws?? Get a clue, man Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted September 21, 2012 I just got off the phone with ASM Mainor's office (Chairman of the Law and Public Safety Committee). They told me that the bill will not be heard on Monday and that it is "being held for amendments." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 21, 2012 Sounds good. Maybe they can make it worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigHayden 77 Posted September 23, 2012 Sounds good. Maybe they can make it worse. Thanks. I just snarfed my coffee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 23, 2012 Thanks. I just snarfed my coffee. One of their staffers probably read this thread and realized the law wasn't going to F anyone anymore than existing law. So, it's back to the drawing board. That's the problem with New Jersey. The gun laws are already so bad that you have to do a lot of research to find an unturned stone to make them worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted September 23, 2012 What do you say to taking up a collection to send the D members (and some of the R members, too) of the NJ Legislature on a "fact-finding" mission to Libya to explore the area of Gun Control? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 23, 2012 What do you say to taking up a collection to send the D members (and some of the R members, too) of the NJ Legislature on a "fact-finding" mission to Libya to explore the area of Gun Control? ^Hahahaha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TK421 2 Posted September 23, 2012 What do you say to taking up a collection to send the D members (and some of the R members, too) of the NJ Legislature on a "fact-finding" mission to Libya to explore the area of Gun Control? I'd chip in a few bucks to send them to Camden overnight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianargent 7 Posted September 23, 2012 Pretty sure that under federal law, a prohibited person may not possess either firearms or ammunition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downr@nge 22 Posted September 23, 2012 You always COULD be "Lautenberged" weapon used or not. ANY Final RO made you a Prohibited person. ANY Misemeanor Assault (DV) conviction, even just Simple Assault makes you a Prohibited person. Oh okay, thanks for correcting me. I thought it was the way I said it. This new legislation is still a bad idea though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikelets456 78 Posted September 24, 2012 will we have to start filling out a cert of eligibility to buy ammo is the question I think it's heading in that direction. Essentially, it will get to the point where having a speeding ticket in the past 3 years will make it impossible to get ammunition. Little by little these progressives chip away at your freedom. There is one phrase that really concerns me and leaves an "open door" to making it impossible to get ammo: "bias intimidation pursuant to N.J.S.2C:16-1;" Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but isn't "bias" and opinion? So if you disagree with the NJEA that could be BIAS intimidation? Maybe I'm reading it wrong...someone please explain? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueLineFish 615 Posted September 24, 2012 Bias intimidation is a hate crime. Its basically an add on charge to another crime if the crime is motivated by race,sex, religion etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites