Blue Jersey Calling for Tough Gun Laws

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Here's the minimum of gun law change that Blue Jersey is hoping to get pushed through NJ Legislature......

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  
• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  
• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  
• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  
• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  
• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

 

 

The fight WILL come here.....

 

http://www.blue jersey.com/diary/22191/new-jersey-gun-laws-we-can-do-better

[Candide 0]

It seems that most people don't understand what a right is.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Maybe we should poll people if they have the right to even talk about this being why should they have the right of the 1A to talk about restricting our 2A right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M1152 713]

Here's the minimum of gun law change that Blue Jersey is hoping to get pushed through NJ Legislature......

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  
• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  
• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  
• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  
• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  
• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

The fight WILL come here.....

 

http://www.blue jersey.com/diary/22191/new-jersey-gun-laws-we-can-do-better

thanks you for the heads-up up, btw link is not working, there is a space between e and the j

 

BlueJersey

 

Anyway this is going to get ugly for us

[Qel Hoth 33]

Here's the minimum of gun law change that Blue Jersey is hoping to get pushed through NJ Legislature......

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  
• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  
• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  
• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  
• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  
• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

 

 

The fight WILL come here.....

 

http://www.blue jersey.com/diary/22191/new-jersey-gun-laws-we-can-do-better

 

There are gun shows in nj?

[mcbethr 42]

Do you realize that every single thing he said was wrong, except the one about the 15 round magazines.

 

Every. Single. Thing.

[ruger9 0]

No worries, I have it from good sources here on the forum that none of this will come to anything...

[ruger9 0]

deleted. Misunderstood post I was referring to.

 

Yeah- whoever wrote that list is an idiot.

 

I'm not giving my 15-rounders back.

[Vzguy 13]

Those were all taken from the brady site:

 

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/NJ

[plode 0]

Here's the minimum of gun law change that Blue Jersey is hoping to get pushed through NJ Legislature......

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  
• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  
• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  
• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  
• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  
• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

 

The fight WILL come here.....

 

http://www.blue jersey.com/diary/22191/new-jersey-gun-laws-we-can-do-better

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  

Are we not required to have a background check in order to get a FID? And every gun purchased at a FFL is run through NICS, National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  

I haven't seen a gun show in NJ except when I roll up my sleeves

• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  

While this is true, I do not oppose safety training for gun purchasers.

• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  

We're required to have a FID to purchase firearms. What do they mean by "license"?

• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  

Every gun shop I've been in for the past few years has kept ammunition purchasing records, and for all handgun ammo they've asked for a FID.

• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

Ok, this is true. I don't see the big deal when most other states allow people to have 100 round drums. Are we as citizens of New Jersey less trustworthy than Floridians?

[Babyface Finster 45]

Based upon some of his other blogs, I can see he is exactly the type of New Jersian that has me itching to leave this state after living my entire life here. This isn't some moderate who is calling for new gun restrictions. He's a dyed in the wool anti-gun nut. His own statement "Of course even the strongest California laws pale in comparison with stricter regulations in Europe where the per cent of the population owning guns is far lower. " His goal is to reduce/eliminate gun ownership. Period. Well, actually his main goal seems to be to rail against Christie so you can't expect him to miss an opportunity to do so, however ghoulish.

 

I'm worried when the previously apathetic individuals call for this stuff, but when hardened anti's do it's simply same story, different day.

[BigHayden 77]

• We do not require background checks on all fireams (only handguns).
  

Are we not required to have a background check in order to get a FID? And every gun purchased at a FFL is run through NICS, National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

 

You can purchase long guns privately with a COE and no background check at the point of sale. Though, I would argue that a background check was needed to obtain the FPID...

• We have not closed the gun show loophole nor required background checks on long guns at gun shows.
  

I haven't seen a gun show in NJ except when I roll up my sleeves

• We do not require safety training/testing for gun purchasers.
  

While this is true, I do not oppose safety training for gun purchasers.

 

There is zero evidence that safety training does anything to reduce accidents. This is also true for concealed carry licenses.

• We do not require a license to possess all firearms.
  

We're required to have a FID to purchase firearms. What do they mean by "license"?

 

License to possess. We have a license to purchase (and purchase permits, for handguns) but they are suggesting we need to go to an FOID card, like IL has. Of course, licenses to purchase or possess have zero impact on crime.

• We do not require ammunition purchaser records be kept nor vendors licensed.
  

Every gun shop I've been in for the past few years has kept ammunition purchasing records, and for all handgun ammo they've asked for a FID.

• We do not ban purchase of large capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds (only more than 15 rounds.)
  

Ok, this is true. I don't see the big deal when most other states allow people to have 100 round drums. Are we as citizens of New Jersey less trustworthy than Floridians?

 

Don't you listen to our beloved Governor? New Jersey is different.

[NJScott 15]

I'll keep saying/writing it till I'm blue in the face or have carpal tunnel syndrome: this tragedy in CT has the anti's smelling a big, popularly-supported victory. BUT they are not being honest about their end-game. Every story I've read in the Daily Snooze and the surprisingly anti-2A New York POST, has their editorials and journalists calling for tougher gun control. No specifics really....but they KNOW they have to be tougher. Like Bloomberg, with his blanket disclaimer of "I support responsible gun ownership", they are simply not telling the truth: they want ALL GUNS BANNED, BAR NONE.

 

This is what we are up against, not some possible patch-quilt of hurriedly-passed new regulations that will add to our misery while fueling the desire of the anti's to do something...anything about the evil guns out there. Nope, they want them all GONE, but don't have the courage or the balls to just come out and say it. They can make us die the death of a Thousand Cuts by making stricter, ever more Draconian gun laws, but I think they should just come out and ask for a total ban, a la the U.K., so we can get this national dialogue on guns started in the proper context.

[mipafox 438]

Would this agenda be an improvement? I'm so Jersey confused...

[quikz 34]

I support a Total Gun BAN. Only for those who want guns banned. They must sign off for life, a permanent ban and restriction from possessing or shooting any firearm or face felony jail time. I really have No Probs with that.

[PDM 91]

I'll keep saying/writing it till I'm blue in the face or have carpal tunnel syndrome: this tragedy in CT has the anti's smelling a big, popularly-supported victory. BUT they are not being honest about their end-game. Every story I've read in the Daily Snooze and the surprisingly anti-2A New York POST, has their editorials and journalists calling for tougher gun control. No specifics really....but they KNOW they have to be tougher. Like Bloomberg, with his blanket disclaimer of "I support responsible gun ownership", they are simply not telling the truth: they want ALL GUNS BANNED, BAR NONE.

 

This is what we are up against, not some possible patch-quilt of hurriedly-passed new regulations that will add to our misery while fueling the desire of the anti's to do something...anything about the evil guns out there. Nope, they want them all GONE, but don't have the courage or the balls to just come out and say it. They can make us die the death of a Thousand Cuts by making stricter, ever more Draconian gun laws, but I think they should just come out and ask for a total ban, a la the U.K., so we can get this national dialogue on guns started in the proper context.

 

You are right, but is the answer A) keep falling back on the "what part of 'infringed' don't you understand" BS or B) play their game and perhaps not lose too much ground? The horror in CT was a game changer. People -- both died in the wool gun banners and people on the fence, and probably even a fair number of gun owners -- want something, anything done. If we/the NRA choose option A and fall back on the tried and true no negotiating, we're right you're wrong arguments, there is zero question in my mind that they (and we) are going to get steam-rolled. Assault weapons ban with 10 round mag limit for sure, possibly no grandfather clause. How do you feel about turning in all of your legally purchased pinned 15 round AR mags, or all of the 15 round mags for your Glock 19, or perhaps your AR (or becoming an instant felon).

 

Or, we can try option B with dialogue along the lines of the following: Messrs Bloomberg, Schumer, etc. Restricting firerams based on cosmetic features makes no sense. However, we do understand that some people believe that larger magazines do make it marginally easier for mass killings to occur. [And please spare me the BS about 20 and 30 round magazines being unreliable, we know they aren't, and the BS about someone being able to just use multiple 10 round magazines. If that were true, if 10 are as good as 20, why aren't we, who want them for self-defense, satsified with 10??] So let's have a discussion about that. Why do you think 10 rounds is the right number? Where is your evidence to support that? And oh, by the way, here's a list of 50 commonly owned firearms --- owned in the millions nationwide -- that are manufacture with magazines that accept between 10 and 20 rounds. Why shouldn't the max number be 20, to reduce the huge economic impact on law abiding gun owners. An oh, by the way, you claim to support the 2A which a court of appeals has now clearly stated applies outside the home, so let's discuss why concealed carry laws, as to which there is zero evidence that they negatively impact public safety, shouldn't be expanded nationwide, and why NYC's gun laws shouldn't be made more rational and "sensible." etc., etc., etc.

 

Give the pro gun politicians like Manchin and others who are ready to turn on us something to work with and I bet they will. We need to play chess here, not checkers. And being the party of "no compromise", the party of absolutists, is most definitely going to get all gun owners hosed.

[woodentoe 14]

Yep.

[quikz 34]

After reading all this. And still am extremely heartbroken over the CT murders..

 

What sorta bothers me is this. IF the horrible incident in CT never happened, this 'agenda' would still be pushed. Which begs the question, are you grandstanding over this tragedy?

 

[PDM 91]

After reading all this. And still am extremely heartbroken over the CT murders..

 

What sorta bothers me is this. IF the horrible incident in CT never happened, this 'agenda' would still be pushed. Which begs the question, are you grandstanding over this tragedy?

 

Don't know who you are addressing or what you mean by grandstanding, but the difference is that while yes, the same agenda has been pushed by the antis for years, not too many people were listening. Most politicians weren't, the majority of Amercians weren't, and Senators with 'A' ratings from the NRA most certainly weren't. ALL of those people are now on board for additional restrictions of one sort or another, ergo more restrictive gun laws of some sort almost certainly will pass this time. The NRA should be working to mitigate that to the extent possible and perhaps even turning the tables and forcing the antis to put up or shut up on their bs claims to "want a conversation" on the second amendment. A "conversation" requires two sides, so I say let's talk to them and see what comes of it. Worst case we'll be no worse off than we would be if we refuse any compromise.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Yeah like maybe the NRA can get a national CCW and have it regulated by Obama.

I dont want a national dialog on anything two A.

I want the constitution upheld.

[quikz 34]

These gun banners have been on video stating they will 'wait for the opportunity' and such for the right moment to push their longtime agenda. So, just makes me uncomfortable that they would come out of the woodwork now and make their 'sales pitch' if you would.

 

No other direct issues are mention nearly enough.

 

[BigHayden 77]

PDM,

 

Anytime you "compromise" to give up only part of your rights, you lose, period. We should not compromise on rights. That's the stand we need to take. NJScott is right. The end game for the other side is a complete gun ban. Any progress to that end is a victory for them and a loss for us. There is no appeasement.

[KpdPipes 388]

After reading all this. And still am extremely heartbroken over the CT murders..

 

What sorta bothers me is this. IF the horrible incident in CT never happened, this 'agenda' would still be pushed. Which begs the question, are you grandstanding over this tragedy?

 

WHO exactly is doing the "Grandstanding" IMo it's the banners who were starting their crap before the blood was dry on Friday

[Rob0115 1,105]

I believe we won't even be given the chance to compromise but feel we will be asked to completely forfeit our 2A rights.

[raz-0 1,259]

The horror in CT was a game changer. People -- both died in the wool gun banners and people on the fence, and probably even a fair number of gun owners -- want something, anything done. If we/the NRA choose option A and fall back on the tried and true no negotiating, we're right you're wrong arguments, there is zero question in my mind that they (and we) are going to get steam-rolled. Assault weapons ban with 10 round mag limit for sure, possibly no grandfather clause. How do you feel about turning in all of your legally purchased pinned 15 round AR mags, or all of the 15 round mags for your Glock 19, or perhaps your AR (or becoming an instant felon).

 

It's a game changer. Because according to polls one by CBS, the other by ABC, 54% and 57% call for stricter gun control. Pol conducted 12-14 to 12-16 of this month.

 

This is pretty much in line with answers for that poll form 2000-2008. It is significantly lower than polling for that question from 1990-2000 for which the lowest response was 62% and the highest over 70%.

 

THe only thing watershed about opinions on this is the degree of spin.

[hardlife_nef 1]

Can someone explain how stricter laws wouldve prevented this tragedy? Looks like the shooter broke a number of laws. I don't see how further compromising an unalienable right would help. Not trying to stir anything up, I am just tired of people jumping in on a tragedy to further their agenda. Especially when what they want is flat out unconstitutional, or does that even matter anymore? Yes we have had more mass shootings than typical. Yes its tragic. No it shouldnt happen. While everyone is focused on the tool the crime was commited with, where are the questions as to why? Not a conspiracy theorist, but if all of this years shooters had mental issues, shouldnt we be looking to see how we an do something about that. I mean in a commercial this am I hear the disclaimer that anti-depressants can cause feelings of suicide. How effed up is that? So what drugs i any was dude on? What were these others taking and is there any corralation?

[ruger9 0]

Can someone explain how stricter laws wouldve prevented this tragedy?

 

Here's one that was proposed to me on another forum (a guitar forum):

 

"People who have mentally-challenged living in the house should be prohibited from owning firearms."

 

In other words, violate one person's right based on what ANOTHER person MIGHT do. How American.

 

And here's the other one, altho they didn't have the balls to come out and say it:

 

"ALL semi-automatic weapons should be illegal." (no one needs a semi-automatic weapon for hunting, sporting or self-defense.)

 

They'd gladly leave us with pump shotguns (which would eventually be banned, because everyone would use them to commit the same crimes once all the semi-autos are gone), breech-loaders, bolt guns, and muzzle loaders.

 

Frankly, that's what the anti-gunners are having wet dreams about: banning ALL semi-auto guns, period.

[hardlife_nef 1]

Well there you go, that solves everything. We just need a precrime unit, that way they can stop people before they do anything wrong...

[ruger9 0]

Well there you go, that solves everything. We just need a precrime unit, that way they can stop people before they do anything wrong...

 

Exactly. The Minority Report.

[Johnny 0]

It's a game changer. Because according to polls one by CBS, the other by ABC, 54% and 57% call for stricter gun control. Pol conducted 12-14 to 12-16 of this month.

 

This is pretty much in line with answers for that poll form 2000-2008. It is significantly lower than polling for that question from 1990-2000 for which the lowest response was 62% and the highest over 70%.

 

THe only thing watershed about opinions on this is the degree of spin.

 

The problem is that a big chunk of those 54% and 57% have no idea what the gun laws are as they stand. They are reading articles that are full of inaccuracies, like the one posted above, and taking it as fact and passing that info on to others. I would wager that 90% of non-gun owners have no idea what an assault rifle actually is. Sadly there are also many gun owners who don't know either. It's a shame how many NJ residents I see at EFGA with 10 round mags "because anything more than that is illegal in NJ".