Secaucus Spectator - January 2013 Edition - A Good Man With A Gun

[TheWombat 67]

The January edition of the Secaucus Spectator had the following front page article:

 

"A Good Man With a Gun"

 

After the Newtown school shootings, the NRA asserts that "A good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun." The NRA has offered to be the TSA of community schools and provide volunteer "good men with guns" in U.S. schools.

 

There are close to 17,000 people residing in Secaucus in 7,2000 households. Many of them have guns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons and the like. The overall U.S. propensity to have a weapon in the home varies by year but in 2011 the level was 47 percent.

 

By inference, between 2,500 to 3,500 hundred [sic] weapons are stored in Secaucus households.

 

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act required all free able bodied white male citizens under 45 to muster with a local militia and equip themselves witha good musket or flintlock.

 

In 2008, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes of self-defense within the home and federal enclaves.

 

A NJ owner of a gun is issued a permit by local police which implies the ownership of a gun is a privilege not an absolute right.

 

The NRA approach to school safety envisions shootouts within schools. However, a bad man with a gun that has full body armor and a weapon that can fire 30 rounds per minute would normally destroy a volunteer person with a 38 pistol and no bullet proof vest.

 

Secaucus has passed local ordinances forbidding Styrofoam, restricting parking on public streets, serving no hard liquor in BYOB restaurants and the like.

 

What if Secaucus passed an ordinance requiring all rifles and multi-round weapons to be taken to the Police Department where they would be stored. When an owner needed a rifle for sport or range firing they would check out their weapon by providing a copy of their gun permit.

 

The gun owners would retain ownership of their rifles and assault weapons and the stated usage of the gun would be recorded in the event something untoward happened.

 

Almost 10,000 people a year are killed by guns.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To which I responded with a written letter (with a big thank you to Pizza Bob for helping proof read and with some edits)

 

 

Secaucus

9

^th

January, 2013

 

Dear Sir,

 

As a legal firearm owner living in Secaucus, I am pleased to see an article opening a discussion on firearms ownership. Your article in the Jan 2013 issue of the Secaucus Spectator began in the open spirit of covering some key facts about the number of households in Secaucus that contain firearms. I believe the numbers you state (2,500 to 3,500) may actually be on the low side, as many households contain multiple firearms.

However, the latter part of the article seems to be missing some key points and considerations in the, ongoing and very visible, debate around how to reduce violence.

 

I'm unsure of the relevance of your reference to the Militia Act of 1792. The Bill of Rights, which, of course contains the second amendment, was ratified prior to passage of the Militia Act. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the second amendment is an individual right (as are the others in the Bill of Rights), so your obfuscation of including that reference is consistent with the mainstream media’s treatment of the firearm issue. This is part and parcel of the rhetoric used by the media in the current firearms discussions, which is typically 'anti-gun' and portrays gun-owners as stereotypes and discredits the efforts and price paid by millions of American's since independence.

 

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. NJ requires a prospective firearms owner to obtain a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPID) and/or a Permit to Purchase a Handgun (PtoP), dependent on the type of firearm they desire to purchase. The process to obtain a FPID or PtoP is arduous. It involves completing an application form, fingerprinting, mental health check, character references and a background investigation by the local police department. This process is implemented once for the purchase of long arms, but must be completed for each individual purchase of a handgun. To complicate matters further, many local police departments add their own conditions, restrictions and additional forms. I would point out that this is a violation of the very law that the police are tasked to enforce (see: 2C:58-3f). While an FPID is good for as long as the named person resides at the issue address, the PtoP’s have a shelf life 90 days (renewable for another 90 days at the police chief’s discretion). The fact that NJ is one of the few states that that has a “One Gun A Month” law (applies only to handguns), places an additional burden on the lawful purchaser. As you quite rightly point out in your article, this convoluted process can be construed as making ownership a privilege rather than a right. The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) is currently fighting this battle to reclaim and affirm this right on several fronts.

 

Your suggestion of storing "all rifles and multi-round weapons” at the local police department is specious on its face. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason our forefathers framed the second amendment – it was to give citizens a final recourse against a tyrannical government – potentially the very government you advocate “storing” our privately owned firearms. It is also at odds with your quoting of the DC v Heller case covering self-defense, since a legal firearm owner would be unable to defend themselves if their firearms were stored at the police department. The suggestion would also place additional burdens on an already overworked and understaffed police force, one that would be better utilized to actively reduce crime on the streets. Such a system would also preclude the firearm owner from using their property in a defensive mode as occurs approximately 2 million times a year in this country. We would therefore see muggings, rapes and other violent crimes increase as seen in the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3 to 4 times that of the US.

 

In addition, your suggestion that firearms be stored at the local police department would require a further change in NJ firearms law to make transport to and from the PD legal. Existing NJ law states that "All weapons being transported under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section shall be carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported, and in the course of travel shall include only such deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances." As 'reasonably necessary' has never been defined this puts legal firearm owners at risk of prosecution.

 

While New Jersey already has some of the most oppressive gun laws in the country we still have crime ridden cities like Newark, Camden and Trenton where shootings are common place. One only needs to look at other large urban areas such Chicago or Washington, DC, where guns are virtually outlawed, to see that gun laws have little to no effect on crime. Should this not make us question whether gun control actually is the right answer? Empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise. There is significant data that supports the theory that a high level of legal gun ownership actually reduces crime.

 

In the majority of tragedies the "bad man" did not wear any body armor although the media continues to misrepresent the facts. The media tend to label simple "tactical gear" as body armor. As for your assertion of the ineffectiveness of a lone armed individual against an active shooter – the current law enforcement paradigm would tend to refute that assertion. During the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies the strategy was to wait for law enforcement to arrive en masse before entering the site and engaging the shooter. It has been found that those precious minutes cost many lives. An armed presence, on-site, that can react immediately greatly reduces the number of casualties. The current paradigm is for the first law enforcement on the scene, regardless of number, to engage the shooter. It has been proven that these cowardly mass murderers, when confronted by an armed force, will either surrender, or take their own life. Many studies have shown that Law Enforcement, even with the best intentions, can take, on average, 10 minutes to arrive at an active crime scene. That mitigates for an armed presence on-site, rather than wasting minutes and lives waiting for an exterior law enforcement armed response. Given current response times, a 'bad guy' can massacre many innocents, regardless of the hardware used. Trying to restrict certain types of rifles or magazines will not alter this.

 

The 10,000 people a year killed by guns, that you quote, is largely a result of gang on gang violence, which will occur irrespective of gun legislation. The majority of gangs have illegally owned firearms. This mayhem would not stop even if their firearms could be removed. The actual number of firearm fatalities through accidental discharges and tragedies may be less than 20% of the number you quote.

 

The NRA has an excellent education division that successfully teaches safe firearm use and storage to millions of Americans each year. They further promote gun safety for children through their Eddie Eagle program, which is available to all school systems. This education and awareness campaign saves many lives each year and promotes safe firearm ownership. We already have a surplus of laws covering firearms, our priority should be to simplify and enforce these while encouraging gun owners to responsibly store firearms and ammunition securely at home.

 

Stories in the news, such as the recent article on NJ.com, about Corey Thermitus, a young man caught after carjacking a woman at gunpoint point up a major failing in the criminal justice system. Corey already had 2 felony convictions and multiple arrests, but was back on the streets to, yet again, prey on the populace with an illegal gun.

 

I would encourage you to include groups such as the NJ2AS in your discussion of how we can work together to ensure the safety of our children and the public while supporting the Constitution that this nation was founded upon.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

------------------------------------------------

 

TheWombat

[Albanian 121]

Very good response letter. Facts will always trump emotional appeals.

[lunker 274]

Very well reasoned.

Unfortunately the average person will only make it through a single paragraph before yawning and turning on tv set.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Awsome. I bet it gets printed.Yeah right!

[Bully 749]

Another reason that this would be a terrible idea is simply this. Before the revolution, in the lead up, colonists used to keep arms and ammunition in store houses. It was quite easy, then, for the British to take and maintain control of said arms and ammunition. It, from a tactical perspective makes perfect sense. Go after the store houses of ammunition and arms as it is much easier, simpler and safer than going after the individuals that posess them. I know that you make reference to this in your letter, but I feel that it bears repeating that this is an old tactic to maintain control.

 

Those that choose to ignore or forget history are quite doomed to repeat it.

 

C

[bulpup 98]

needs editing. Lots of it. Sorry to say.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

needs editing. Lots of it. Sorry to say.

 

By all means, please demonstrate how it could have been better written.

 

Nice job Wombat and P. Bob!

[NicePants 58]

Damn good read. Much more articulate a response than I possibly could have cobbled together.

[TheWombat 67]

My response ended up being much longer than planned, which is unfortunate. While I expect it will be ignored I have at least tried.

 

TheWombat

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I see you have changed a lot since you are a firearms owner. I'm trying to find that thread you started a few years ago.

[djg0770 481]

By all means, please demonstrate how it could have been better written.

 

Nice job Wombat and P. Bob!

 

In all things, consider the source, and the source's experience. Bulpup works within the liberal enclave of NYC TV. As such, he sees how the main stream media writes - and lets face facts here folks - they KNOW how to craft an argument that a) shuts out the other side, b) gets people's attention, c) maintains the sheeple's "gnat with ADHD" attention span and d) provides them with a memorable take away in a short phrase. Pizza Bob on the other hand is a lawyer - he crafts arguments for other lawyers (and judges who were lawyers) and while accurate, and possibly even to the point, it's not, how shall we say... "entertaining". And yes, I know PB isn't the OP and didn't write the above.

 

None of this says what's written above is "wrong", it's not, but there's a difference between editing and proofreading.

[woodentoe 14]

One thing I saw in the initial article that was worth picking up on was him saying that people in secaucus own assault weapons.

 

This is false. There are no assault weapons in NJ. They are banned. If a rifle is legal to own...it is in no way an assault weapon.

[NicePants 58]

In all things, consider the source, and the source's experience. Bulpup works within the liberal enclave of NYC TV. As such, he sees how the main stream media writes - and lets face facts here folks - they KNOW how to craft an argument that a) shuts out the other side, b) gets people's attention, c) maintains the sheeple's "gnat with ADHD" attention span and d) provides them with a memorable take away in a short phrase. Pizza Bob on the other hand is a lawyer - he crafts arguments for other lawyers (and judges who were lawyers) and while accurate, and possibly even to the point, it's not, how shall we say... "entertaining".

 

None of this says what's written above is "wrong", it's not, but there's a difference between editing and proofreading.

 

It's a sad truth. If you put two articles side by side, one detailing a scientific advancement that will forever end disease and another detailing that Justin Bieber's dog can do backflips, which do you think most people will check out first?

[NicePants 58]

One thing I saw in the initial article that was worth picking up on was him saying that people in secaucus own assault weapons.

 

This is false. There are no assault weapons in NJ. They are banned. If a rifle is legal to own...it is in no way an assault weapon.

 

That always gets me. These people know nothing about the things they're talking about, and yet they expect to be taken at their word and called professional. It's like, you really want to tell me what I should and shouldn't own when you can't tell an assault rifle from your own asshole?

[bulpup 98]

Im on a train. I give a rough edit later if there are no objections. I don't want to sound like a dick. Sorry if I did.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matty 810]

That original published 'article' look like it was written by a Gen-Y public school brainwashee. Absolutely atrocious, I hope they don't actually pay for that content

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

In all things, consider the source, and the source's experience. Bulpup works within the liberal enclave of NYC TV. As such, he sees how the main stream media writes - and lets face facts here folks - they KNOW how to craft an argument that a) shuts out the other side, b) gets people's attention, c) maintains the sheeple's "gnat with ADHD" attention span and d) provides them with a memorable take away in a short phrase. Pizza Bob on the other hand is a lawyer - he crafts arguments for other lawyers (and judges who were lawyers) and while accurate, and possibly even to the point, it's not, how shall we say... "entertaining". And yes, I know PB isn't the OP and didn't write the above.

 

None of this says what's written above is "wrong", it's not, but there's a difference between editing and proofreading.

 

Ok, I understand, and apologize for my snark. I sincerely look forward to seeing how it can be improved for "mass consumption" and still remain on point.

 

P. Bob's a lawyer? That explains why he's so eloquent...

[mcbethr 42]

Well, I'll add one more it. Keeping your guns at the police station would be an unlawful transfer. Going to the police department on your way back from the range to drop off your gun is not covered in the exemptions.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Well done Wombat.

[zoid 24]

I wish more pro gun ppl would respond so professionally. Great job.

[MarkWVU02 47]

Great response.

[bulpup 98]

LIke this and even this feels long.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

As a legal firearm owner living in Secaucus, I am pleased to see an article opening a discussion on firearms ownership. Your article in the Jan 2013 issue of the Secaucus Spectator began in the open spirit of covering some key facts about the number of households in Secaucus that contain firearms. I believe the numbers you give, 2,500 to 3,500 may be on the low side.

 

However, these ownership numbers come in spite of the fact that New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. NJ requires a prospective firearms owner to obtain a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPID) and additional “Permits to Purchase (PtoP) for each handgun. The process to get either one involves completing an application form, fingerprinting, mental health check, character references and a background investigation by the local police department.

 

Additionally, each Permit to Purchase for a handgun expires in 90 days, forcing already permitted and investigated gun owners to have another check performed, complete with new paperwork, should they wish to buy another handgun - even if they just had one done three months ago.

 

You quite rightly point out in your article that this convoluted process can be construed as gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right. However I would like to further point out that this is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

 

As such, The Bill of Rights, which is where we find the Second Amendment, was ratified prior to passage of the Militia Act of 1792 that you quote, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the second amendment is an individual right. The connection of the two documents is widely considered a stretch by Constitutional scholars. Being required to carry a musket in 1792 does not change the fact that the Second Amendment is a Right before, after and, most importantly, now.

To believe the founding fathers could not conceive of progress that would make a musket obsolete is, frankly, a very condescending way to view the men that envisioned the United States. If the Militia Act were still relevant, where is your musket?

 

 

Your suggestion of storing "all rifles and multi-round weapons” at the local police department

is at odds with your quoted DC v Heller case which affirms that the Second Amendment’s is pertinent to self-defense in the home. Having to store a firearm at a police station is exactly contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent decision on how the Second Amendment applies. You would not only have to call the police if you needed to protect you self, but go there as well. If by chance you agree this is a good idea I will re-iterate that the DC v Heller case assures all citizens of this country that they can in fact defend their homes with their legally owned firearms. Laws contrary to that then are unconstitutional.

 

Regarding the “bad man” part of your article; It is important to know that in the majority of tragedies the "bad man" did not wear any body armor. The fact that it is reported as such is contradicted by the actual police reports stating it was “tactical gear” or “load bearing vests. None of which are actually armor. The inclusion of such erroneous ‘facts” are as accurate as stating that the “bad guy” had a “rapid fire musket.” – It sounds about right, but is totally wrong.

 

As for your assertion of the ineffectiveness of a lone armed individual against an active shooter –current law enforcement policy disagrees. Through careful analysis police have determined - and now teach - that an armed presence on-site will greatly reduce the number of casualties. Yes there are those that point out that there was an armed guard at the Columbine school, but wouldn’t you agree that the Police are the experts in these matters? If they don’t know how to do these things, who are we to tell them?

 

The 10,000 people a year killed by guns, that you quote, is largely a result of gang on gang violence, which will occur irrespective of gun legislation. The actual number of firearm fatalities through accidental discharges and tragedies may be less than 20% of the number you quote. However it brings to mind a recent article on NJ.com about Corey Thermitus, a young man caught after carjacking a woman at gunpoint point. Corey already had 2 felony convictions and multiple arrests, but was back on the streets to, yet again, prey on the populace with an illegal gun. This I believe illustrates the fundamental differences in our approaches to guns and laws. On the one hand, I say the laws are there to put Corey away for a long time, but he doesn’t work that way. Therefore I would like to have my legal gun to protect me from his very persistent criminal activity. Laws such as you propose, since I oblige by being a law-abiding citizen, affect me only. And Cory just keeps coming and coming.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

[TheWombat 67]

@bulpup thanks! Understand the desire to make it shorter and your edits look good. Perhaps people can re-use parts of both of these as/when required in response to their local publications and politicians.

 

TheWombat

[JimmyAGR 54]

Nice job to both. Now if we can just get these to the MSM.....

[Bully 749]

Bulpup, can you write for me? I suck at it.

 

Nice job and thanks for taking it on.

 

C

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

P. Bob's a lawyer? That explains why he's so eloquent...

 

Thank you for the kind words but, let me set this straight right now: IANAL - I'll confess to being the last 80% of that acronym.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[TheWombat 67]

I see you have changed a lot since you are a firearms owner. I'm trying to find that thread you started a few years ago.

 

Ray Ray,

 

Let's not get too carried away here!

 

As a visitor to the USA who came here by choice I need to respect the laws and culture of the nation. As such I respect the 2nd Amendment as it is an integral part of the foundation of this nation that I have chosen to reside in.

 

Yes I enjoy going to the range and shooting, and competing in IDPA etc. Yes I have semi-automatic pistols and rifle, and yes I have concealed carried when outside New Jersey.

 

Does that change my views on:

• open-carry - no - overall I am not an avid supporter of open carry (assuming that concealed carry is available) for a number of reasons
  
• training requirements - no - overall I still believe that there are certain responsibilities that come with firearm ownership and concealed carrying and there should be some level of ability and training.
  

I understand that putting training requirements as a pre-requisite to firearm ownership opens up significant risks and goes against the probable intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

I believe that there needs to be some level of balance between 'trusting the population' vs 'considering the safety of the population'. The question is where do you draw the line of balance?

 

I can fully understand why some parents would have concerns about allowing teachers to be armed in schools - if nothing else then statistically it is inevitable that at some point in time a teacher would draw a firearm (and possibly use it) inappropriately. I can also see that an armed teacher could prevent at least some deaths in the situation of an armed attacker by delaying them or distracting them.

 

Think of it this way for those of you who are parents with multiple children - how many times have you had one child misbehave and sent all the children to their rooms, or taken away all their toys... or been affected by this as a child at school. Yes this is very different to the 2nd amendment but is still worth reflecting on. One irresponsible/bad guy does something bad with firearms - let's remove/restrict firearms for everyone is what we're seeing as a mindset from government and many of the public.

 

I do believe that the current gun-control debates are a knee-jerk reaction by ill-informed politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. They perceive it as easier to restrict aspects of firearm ownership rather than solve some of the root cause (mental health, parenting/family unit, moral values, criminal justice system allowing convicted felons to be quickly back on the streets etc). I can see that they are thinking of quick wins here and fixing some of the root cause will take time and cost money.

 

While it is easy to state statistics supporting (or not) firearms, gun rights etc - I do try to be open minded enough to understand that crime (violent or not) cannot be solely a factor of gun ownership numbers - there are cultural, geographical, economical and other factors at play within a single country. When trying to compare across different countries there are even more complexities such as how crimes are categorized, recorded (or not) etc in addition to significant cultural and mindset differences that make comparisons difficult, if not impossible. Hence the comparisons of Switzerland vs USA are in my view somewhat irrelevant.

 

The US is at a potential turning point where the nation needs to decide if firearm ownership is something it supports going forward, and if so in what way. However any changes impacting the 2nd Amendment, if they occur, need to be done in a way that is legal and constitutional. Yes there is a risk that taking away firearms could result in a tyrannical government. As I am not allowed to vote, I may have a view, but the legal voters of the nation need to decide what path they wish to take. I personally believe that restricting magazines and ARs etc from this point in time forward will make no material difference. The nation therefore needs to decide whether it is no firearms at all - i.e. taking away what people already own, or it needs to support the 2nd Amendment and tackle the root cause of gun violence. There are pros/cons with both options.

 

While I am unable to vote I have written to both the Star Ledger and the Secaucus Spectator in the last 2 weeks, I am a member of NJ2AS, NRA and SAF and have also carried out additional donations to them over the last 18 months. I don't agree with everything they do and their messaging/approach at times - however the NRA, for example, is not just a lobby group - it also has a significant education arm that is working to teach responsible firearm ownership to children and adults alike. I personally feel that the NRA should look at itself and change some of it's leadership to gain greater support from the middle ground, however that is a separate discussion.

 

Considering that there are 80 million firearm owners in the US, it is interesting to see that the pro-firearm petitions on the whitehouse site typically struggle to get more than 20,000 signatures yet we're hearing of significantly more people for the anti-firearm petitions - although maybe this is smoke and mirrors. Maybe however the nation is changing....

 

Am curious to see how the next few months unfolds.

 

hth

 

TheWombat

[Ray Ray 3,566]

TheWombat

 

Great read, and even though it was a little long you basically said what i was hoping. Glad your on my side.