Jump to content
JayWilling

New NJ gun bills stalled?

Recommended Posts

Remember, it's very simple anytime you email or talk to a Dem (and I hate to make the generalization along party lines); "why didn't anybody attempt to tackle the Fort Hood shooter while he was reloading his less-than-ten round magazine?"

 

I think I want a bumper sticker made up for that. It's sad the Texas thing occurred but it completely tears Greenwalds basis to shreds. It's mental health not magazines.

 

 

And these were soldiers trained to various degrees in combat/self defense, and yet even they weren't able to tackle a shooter during a reload.    But they expect Joe the plumber to be a fight night champion in the 1-2 seconds it takes to swap mags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't buy the " we're too busy with the state's budget woes to infringe upon the law abiding citizen's 2A rights at the moment ".

NJ budget issues were the big item in the election for governor in 1989. However, Florios's first mission was to whisk the AWB in NJ which went into effect just over 4 months after he took office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things. The guy got in his car and shot at people.

 

But more ominous is that the Army doesn't think it was a mental health issue anymore.

What are you referring to? "A few things"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ budget issues were the big item in the election for governor in 1989. However, Florios's first mission was to whisk the AWB in NJ which went into effect just over 4 months after he took office.

 

Didn't florio promise the police union that only police officers would carry in NJ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ budget issues were the big item in the election for governor in 1989. However, Florios's first mission was to whisk the AWB in NJ which went into effect just over 4 months after he took office.

GRIZ-

 

Back then there was no Web, No mass media channels, no cell phones with texting, etc. No one knew about the ban back then like we do now. The internet age has made more people informed and involved. I know it has made me.

 

I think it is on the back-burner because the Dems are up to something to change in the bill. This is the major bill to back Christie in a corner knowing for well they will use it against him either way. There is no money in the budget to buy-back magazines. Why would they anyway? Christie is going to veto the bill if he ever wants to become President. It is after he is no longer Governor that will see this bill passed.

 

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be perfectly fine with me, as long as it is a REAL crime. Not getting "caught" at the local gas station on your way home from the range because you needed a bathroom! Don't forget, that is also a CRIME, we can not stop ANYWHERE according to their assinine rules!

 No.  I'm already a felon every time I transport outside of the exemptions so I can shoot on my buddy's farm.  I don't want more crimes they can charge me with.   Hypothetically, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I would be fine with that... punish the criminals, not the law abiding.

You are not law abiding. The moment you step out of your house you've committed 15 violations of law in some capacity. You have to get it... you're NOT a law abiding citizen in the eyes of the state! You never have been. You have to understand that in NJ you always a criminal until you convince a judge otherwise in a court of law. Get on board with that and realize ANY concession is a strike to be used against you at any moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably going to amend the bill to "address our concerns."

 

Some of the rumors I've heard:

 

1. They will grandfather existing magazines.

2. They will amend to exclude tube fed .22LR (already amended I believe)

3. They will provide a "magazine exchange" to placate an obviously pissed off Anthony Colandro.

4. They'll open a compliance window so people don't become overnight felons.

 

Of course they may do none of thls.

 

I think what would be sensible is if they would amend it to only apply during the commission of a crime, as an add-on charge. That would be a compromise I would accept.

I don't get why you would accept that. Even with those amendments there would be nothing good about this bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why you would accept that. Even with those amendments there would be nothing good about this bill.

I don't want those amendments. I don't want the bill period.

 

But understand that once Christie rides off into the sunset, Sweeney, Fulop or whoever is going to sign a 10 round bill. Might as well contain the damage long before they get to pass the one they want. So restricting it to criminals only will satisfy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want those amendments. I don't want the bill period.But understand that once Christie rides off into the sunset, Sweeney, Fulop or whoever is going to sign a 10 round bill. Might as well contain the damage long before they get to pass the one they want. So restricting it to criminals only will satisfy that.

Restricting it to criminals? What the hell.... They are criminals and should not even have a gun with 1 round. How would that help? It's already against the law to possess and illegal gun. Criminals are not exempt from that at all now.... We don't need a new bill for something that exists. How many bills we need that do the same thing?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using TT 2 Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting it to criminals? What the hell.... They are criminals and should not even have a gun with 1 round. How would that help? It's already against the law to possess and illegal gun. Criminals are not exempt from that at all now.... We don't need a new bill for something that exists. How many bills we need that do the same thing?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using TT 2 Pro

Agreed but if the restriction is limited to criminal activity it does nothing to us.

 

Again, I do not want the bill, but you know they are going to pass it sooner or later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed but if the restriction is limited to criminal activity it does nothing to us...

The problem is the existing laws are so vague that everyone can be a criminal if the laws are interpreted that way. The new law could be pulled on the existing bad laws and still jam up good people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed but if the restriction is limited to criminal activity it does nothing to us.

 

Again, I do not want the bill, but you know they are going to pass it sooner or later...

 

 

The problem is the existing laws are so vague that everyone can be a criminal if the laws are interpreted that way. The new law could be pulled on the existing bad laws and still jam up good people.

 

-I go to LGS on my lunch hour, pick up a 15 round mag (no ammo or guns with me, just a mag). 

-On my way back to work my phone rings, I look down for a sec to see who it is, look up, a pedestrian jumps out in front of my car. 

-Slam on the brakes, barely touch him/her. 

-The cops respond to the scene, I get hit with 39:4-36, Reckless Driving.  Eff! 5 points, insurance will skyrocket, etc.

-But since the pedestrian fell down and scraped his/her knee, I also get charged with 2C:12-1c(1), Assault by Auto (D.P). Double eff. But it's still just a Municipal Court offense, will just have to pay a fine and move on.

 

Except, that magazine in the bag, still in the package, makes me a felon. Huh? Well I possessed it while committing a crime. 

Goodbye job. Goodbye 2A rights. Hello working at Walmart stocking shelves overnight for the next 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I want a bumper sticker made up for that. It's sad the Texas thing occurred but it completely tears Greenwalds basis to shreds. It's mental health not magazines.

I think what you said right there would make a great bumper sticker:

"It's mental health, not magazines, stupid."

 

(I always thought that was kind of a mean slogan, but I didn't make it up. It might have been Carville.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think W2MC has it right!  They know Christie will veto so why even try???

If it passed the Senate and Christie vetoed it, it would give Christie something to brag about on the stoop!

 

So since it was never going to be law in the first place, why not kill it in the Senate and take away any brownie points

that Christie would have gotten from the Veto!!!  I guarantee you that this is the reason. It makes perfect sense!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if Christie vetoes it.  They don't really want this bill.  They don't believe in gun control any more than they believe in anything they write bills about.  They only want votes.  They would gladly write laws mandating that someone rape their grandmother if it got them votes.

 

As long as democrats vote for people based on how tough they are on gun control, our legislature will continue to write anti-gun laws.  But do not be fooled into thinking they believe in gun control.  They believe in nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think W2MC has it right!  They know Christie will veto so why even try???

If it passed the Senate and Christie vetoed it, it would give Christie something to brag about on the stoop!

 

So since it was never going to be law in the first place, why not kill it in the Senate and take away any brownie points

that Christie would have gotten from the Veto!!!  I guarantee you that this is the reason. It makes perfect sense!!!

 

And why the very moment he leaves office (one way or another), they'll pass it with flying colors. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just about go write what the above poster wrote. Here's why in my opinion

 

Scenario A. We have some school, mall, or work shooting here in NJ. The guy or gal (to be fair) kills at least 10+ people. Guess who is going to be dancing (yet again) in the blood of the victims yelling about how they wanted 10 round magazines and Christie didnt. Don't blame us they will say say, we tried to save lives but Christie vetoed us and now these innocent people are dead. If they had 10 round magazines then maybe someone could have tackled them during a reload. (facepalm)

 

Scenario B. They just wait until Christie is out of office and the next Democratic Governor gets voted in. (Odds are a Dem will win the election) Then they pass the 10 round bill quicker then you can say... Hey! My rights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the existing laws are so vague that everyone can be a criminal if the laws are interpreted that way. The new law could be pulled on the existing bad laws and still jam up good people.

I understand Ryan's point........and the best thing to do, if this bill were to pass in any form, is to limit the additional charge to certain serious felonies, like the body armor law - murder, robbery, rape , etc. That way the Dems could claim they did something to prevent crime but it wouldn't affect gun owners who might commit some minor infraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe they're just waiting a few weeks to see if the SCOTUS takes up the Drake case. Its no big deal to have a Rep gov smack your bills down, nothing to lose but having the SC watching your moves is a little different. Who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe they're just waiting a few weeks to see if the SCOTUS takes up the Drake case. Its no big deal to have a Rep gov smack your bills down, nothing to lose but having the SC watching your moves is a little different. Who knows...

Probably true....with the 9th circuit decision in Peruta and if SCOTUS does take-up Drake, forget the 10 round restriction; the 15 round nonsense is in jeopardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably true....with the 9th circuit decision in Peruta and if SCOTUS does take-up Drake, forget the 10 round restriction; the 15 round nonsense is in jeopardy.

As much as I'd like to believe that, I don't think Drake will have any impact on magazine restrictions. It deals only with carry outside the home. Mag restrictions and silly cosmetic AWB restrictions will have to be part of another "common use" suit.

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...