Krdshrk 3,872 Posted December 2, 2016 From ANJRPC: http://www.anjrpc.org/default.asp BREAKING: Range Bills PULLED From Monday Agenda! December 2, 2016:After several days of gun owner outcry and subsequent dialogue with the bill sponsor, Assemblyman Ralph Caputo (D28) has graciously agreed to hold A4179/A4180 to allow for continued discussion to address gun owner concerns. We also appreciate the assistance of Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee Chairman Daniel Benson (D14) in fostering an environment that will allow meaningful consideration of gun owner concerns. And thank YOU for speaking out and making gun owner voices heard. Please spread the word and make sure our fellow defenders of the Second Amendment know there will be no hearing on these bills on Monday, Dec 5. Further updates will follow as the situation develops. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted December 2, 2016 Great to see that reason prevailed! At least for now. We'll probably have this fight again after Christie leaves office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cereza 106 Posted December 2, 2016 From ANJRPC: "Assemblyman Ralph Caputo (D28) has graciously agreed to hold A4179/A4180 to allow for continued discussion to address gun owner concerns Phil Murphy to be elected Governor." FTFY 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 2, 2016 From ANJRPC: http://www.anjrpc.org/default.asp Oops, I already started walking to Trenton. If this was proposed around the time I got the message then there's no way anything any of us did made a difference. Not in what two days! We've had weeks to stir it up in the past, with our beloved pro-2A leaders snarling and scowling at snoozing committee members. And each and every time these laws sail through. Imagine: Despite seven emails from forum members -- imagine the work involved -- they don't change their minds on these votes. Either: 1) some number of democrats concluded that this law as ridiculous beyond belief 2) someone in law enforcement informed them it would affect cops or retired cops, which as you know is very, very bad 3) they want to rewrite the law because the toy gun provision did not sufficiently cover hand-drawn depictions of guns, pop tarts chewed into gun-like shapes, and evil thoughts concerning words that rhyme with "gun" I can't see any of the Big Two and Little One influencing anybody in Trenton. This would be a first. NRA limits its activities in NJ to collecting dues. ANJRPC did not have the time to put together an appropriately scolding treatise on Locke, Hume, and natural rights. The other guy doesn't do anything unless it involves a free shower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael2013 56 Posted December 3, 2016 ... Either: 1) some number of democrats concluded that this law as ridiculous beyond belief 2) someone in law enforcement informed them it would affect cops or retired cops, which as you know is very, very bad 3) they want to rewrite the law because the toy gun provision did not sufficiently cover hand-drawn depictions of guns, pop tarts chewed into gun-like shapes, and evil thoughts concerning words that rhyme with "gun" ... 4) Someone realized that with the Trump's Supreme Court, these laws will help to bring down the NJ gun laws in their entirety. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Goldwing 90 Posted December 3, 2016 That wouldn't matter so much to the "out of state" person, because none would dare bring their weapons into NJ to shoot them, since they'd be illegal (i.e. no "permanent domicile" for them to be transported to), for the most part. I know mine (even those that originated in NJ) will never see NJ soil, ever again.... EVER! Which brings up an interesting point. Even if national reciprocity is passed, one way NJ can defeat it is by keeping the current "exemption structure" for firearms in place. Yes, you might have a valid out of state carry license/permit, but what good will that do if you still can't possess the weapon for which you have it? Unless they change the exemptions to include "any person who has a valid out of state carry license or permit may possess and carry a handgun in places other than their permanent domicile, business or range, shop, etc." Which, of course, they'll never do. And the feds can't stop it because that has nothing to do with recognizing an out of state carry permit. "Sure, we recognize the permit... we just don't allow you to possess the gun for which you have it." A conceal carry permit is not for a specific gun in Florida, its for any and all hand guns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted December 3, 2016 A conceal carry permit is not for a specific gun in Florida, its for any and all hand guns No one implied they were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted December 3, 2016 4) Someone realized that with the Trump's Supreme Court, these laws will help to bring down the NJ gun laws in their entirety.You are smert!Now it's up to us to raise the funds for the hammers. And coffin nails....( lawsuits) As I've been watching things nationally, it appears that states politicians (bills) aren't that disconnected from other states. In nj the bills being proposed come straight from the DNC. "Let's test the waters". Is it a bat phone ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted December 3, 2016 I remember when 1,500, maybe 2,000 of us showed up in Trenton, filled two huge meeting rooms, with hundreds standing outside. Dozens of us spoke against a series of anti-gun bills. 20 or so people were driven in on a bus from out of state, given reserved seating, and allowed to speak first. One person was escorted out for reminding the committee chair that this was the people's meeting, not his meeting. Those who loved the constitution outnumbered those who hated it 100 to 1. The committee still voted in favor of all 21 anti-gun measures. The next committee hearing, there weren't enough votes to pass the bills so the vote was stopped mid-vote - against their own rules. The vote was done at a later date when the deck was stacked more solidly against us. I don't believe for a second that they are willing to delay the vote to hear what we have to say. Either they're waiting for a change in governors or they're going to put this up for a vote at the last minute unannounced, so we can't be there. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted December 3, 2016 I remember when 1,500, maybe 2,000 of us showed up in Trenton, filled two huge meeting rooms, with hundreds standing outside. Dozens of us spoke against a series of anti-gun bills. 20 or so people were driven in on a bus from out of state, given reserved seating, and allowed to speak first. Those who loved the constitution outnumbered those who hated it 100 to 1. The committee still voted in favor of all 21 anti-gun measures. The next committee hearing, there weren't enough votes to pass the bills so the vote was stopped mid-vote - against their own rules. The vote was done at a later date when the deck was stacked more solidly against us. I don't believe for a second that they are willing to delay the vote to hear what we have to say. Either they're waiting for a change in governors or they're going to put this up at the last minute so we can't be there. Non of what occurs in nj is constituent based. We would have far less problems if it were. Please let this sink in Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted December 3, 2016 No one implied they were. Precisely. Still, I'll clarify and say, "any weapon for which you have it." Point being, The feds can require NJ to "honor" any out of state carry permit or license. OK, so the document itself is valid in NJ. But that won't do any good if the weapons (any of them) that would be used with it are still illegal to possess and use in NJ. And, by the current NJ law and list of exemptions to it, such weapons would still be illegal. Now, can "national reciprocity" cause changes to those specific laws and exemptions regarding possession & use of the weapon? That will be an interesting dog fight between NJ and the feds... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted December 3, 2016 From ANJRPC: http://www.anjrpc.org/default.asp This is why we should speak up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted December 3, 2016 I remember when 1,500, maybe 2,000 of us showed up in Trenton, filled two huge meeting rooms, with hundreds standing outside. Dozens of us spoke against a series of anti-gun bills. 20 or so people were driven in on a bus from out of state, given reserved seating, and allowed to speak first. One person was escorted out for reminding the committee chair that this was the people's meeting, not his meeting. Those who loved the constitution outnumbered those who hated it 100 to 1. The committee still voted in favor of all 21 anti-gun measures. The next committee hearing, there weren't enough votes to pass the bills so the vote was stopped mid-vote - against their own rules. The vote was done at a later date when the deck was stacked more solidly against us. I don't believe for a second that they are willing to delay the vote to hear what we have to say. Either they're waiting for a change in governors or they're going to put this up for a vote at the last minute unannounced, so we can't be there. I was there. THAT was the nail that got me where I am today. Sent from an undisclosed location 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted December 3, 2016 But be advised that the bills are still listed as on the agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 4, 2016 But be advised that the bills are still listed as on the agenda. Sure as God made little apples they'll be back by March or April 2018. I remember when 1,500, maybe 2,000 of us showed up in Trenton, filled two huge meeting rooms, with hundreds standing outside. Dozens of us spoke against a series of anti-gun bills. 20 or so people were driven in on a bus from out of state, given reserved seating, and allowed to speak first. One person was escorted out for reminding the committee chair that this was the people's meeting, not his meeting. Those who loved the constitution outnumbered those who hated it 100 to 1. The committee still voted in favor of all 21 anti-gun measures. The next committee hearing, there weren't enough votes to pass the bills so the vote was stopped mid-vote - against their own rules. The vote was done at a later date when the deck was stacked more solidly against us. I don't believe for a second that they are willing to delay the vote to hear what we have to say. Either they're waiting for a change in governors or they're going to put this up for a vote at the last minute unannounced, so we can't be there. Precisely why the only way through is to vote them out, or vote enough of them out to make the rest SHIT IN THEIR PANTS. Gee I haven't written that in a while. Felt good. The Trump victory shows that electoral miracles and more so lesser events are possible. Think of it this way: Had Hillary been elected, how many emails and phone calls would it have taken to convince her not to take executive action against guns? A million? Billion? Quadrillion? Same with the NJ legislature. They don't fucking care what you email them. They might if we were starting from some reasonable position but we're at ground zero as far as gun rights go. They don't care about your testimony either. I have outlined several times the blueprint for turning several districts toward pro-gun candidates. It doesn't involve pie in the sky tactics like recalls, or ineffective ones like knocking on doors or making cold calls. It involves mobilizing the alleged 1 million+ gun owners in the state. It would have reaped rewards with a Republican governor, even a RINO like Christie, but with the passing of the last legislative election the opportunity in this state has evaporated, probably forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted December 5, 2016 They did "hold the bills at the request of the sponsor." Announced it up front. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parker 213 Posted December 5, 2016 The last election kinda sets the tone for where New Jersey will always be headed: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-jersey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,278 Posted December 5, 2016 The last election kinda sets the tone for where New Jersey will always be headed: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-jersey Probably...but Clinton's margin in NJ was almost 4% lower than Obama's was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,134 Posted December 6, 2016 The last election kinda sets the tone for where New Jersey will always be headed: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-jersey This. Numbers are facts and the fact is the majority gets to rule the way they want. I dont see the voting trend (aka our rights) changing in the near future-if ever. Probably...but Clinton's margin in NJ was almost 4% lower than Obama's was. Or this- "Probably...but Clinton's margin in NJ was only 4% lower than Obama's was." Given Obama was The Chosen One, a Golden Child of the new democratic /socialist agenda and Hillary was such a horribly flawed candidate that only 4% is scary to me about where NJ is going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJGF 375 Posted December 6, 2016 One problem is that lots of us are leaving NJ. If I could I would. And that just leaves the anti's here. Good luck NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 6, 2016 Probably...but Clinton's margin in NJ was almost 4% lower than Obama's was. Even that is astounding though. She committed perjury on national TV. What would she have to do to lose this state? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted December 6, 2016 Even that is astounding though. She committed perjury on national TV. What would she have to do to lose this state? Threaten to cut back on all the "free stuff..." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parker 213 Posted December 6, 2016 Too many folks are coming here for the "free stuff," all while so many are leaving to keep the stuff they worked so hard for all those years! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/the-blue-state-depression/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 7, 2016 Oops, I already started walking to Trenton. If this was proposed around the time I got the message then there's no way anything any of us did made a difference. Not in what two days! We've had weeks to stir it up in the past, with our beloved pro-2A leaders snarling and scowling at snoozing committee members. And each and every time these laws sail through. Imagine: Despite seven emails from forum members -- imagine the work involved -- they don't change their minds on these votes. Either: 1) some number of democrats concluded that this law as ridiculous beyond belief 2) someone in law enforcement informed them it would affect cops or retired cops, which as you know is very, very bad 3) they want to rewrite the law because the toy gun provision did not sufficiently cover hand-drawn depictions of guns, pop tarts chewed into gun-like shapes, and evil thoughts concerning words that rhyme with "gun" I can't see any of the Big Two and Little One influencing anybody in Trenton. This would be a first. NRA limits its activities in NJ to collecting dues. ANJRPC did not have the time to put together an appropriately scolding treatise on Locke, Hume, and natural rights. The other guy doesn't do anything unless it involves a free shower. I remember when 1,500, maybe 2,000 of us showed up in Trenton, filled two huge meeting rooms, with hundreds standing outside. Dozens of us spoke against a series of anti-gun bills. 20 or so people were driven in on a bus from out of state, given reserved seating, and allowed to speak first. One person was escorted out for reminding the committee chair that this was the people's meeting, not his meeting. Those who loved the constitution outnumbered those who hated it 100 to 1. The committee still voted in favor of all 21 anti-gun measures. The next committee hearing, there weren't enough votes to pass the bills so the vote was stopped mid-vote - against their own rules. The vote was done at a later date when the deck was stacked more solidly against us. I don't believe for a second that they are willing to delay the vote to hear what we have to say. Either they're waiting for a change in governors or they're going to put this up for a vote at the last minute unannounced, so we can't be there. I think we did have an impact. If we look at the sponsor of the bill, it wasn't the usual suspects. They were likely not prepared for the response they got. Per my conversation with Bach, this started out following the usual script of "we will make amendments after it passes" and things changed when gun owners spoke up. Full interview below. (Its a long one). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 7, 2016 I think we did have an impact. If we look at the sponsor of the bill, it wasn't the usual suspects. They were likely not prepared for the response they got. Per my conversation with Bach, this started out following the usual script of "we will make amendments after it passes" and things changed when gun owners spoke up. Full interview below. (Its a long one). First of all there wasn't enough time between when this was announced and when the bill was pulled. Second, gun owners don't get off their asses for any reason other than to grab a slice of pizza and a brew so it's unlikely they got more than 10 or so emails. As someone who initiated a gun-related email campaign in the past I can assure you it's very unlikely any meaningful number of people emailed them, particularly because the law would have only affected a portion of the gun-owning public. Does Joe Shotgun really give a shit if my son in law from PA can shoot at my range? Third if you're right this would be the first time anyone has ever heeded anything initiated by the "usual suspects" of ANJRPC, NJ2AS, and NRA-ILA. Again highly unlikely. Bet you dollars to donuts this comes back from the dead in different form, or some time after January, 2018. Maybe the bill had some legislative defect. Maybe they thought CC would veto it. But mark my words this is not the last we've seen of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty 810 Posted December 7, 2016 Yup, and is getting me on the road out as well-- I was there. THAT was the nail that got me where I am today.Sent from an undisclosed location Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 8, 2016 First of all there wasn't enough time between when this was announced and when the bill was pulled. Second, gun owners don't get off their asses for any reason other than to grab a slice of pizza and a brew so it's unlikely they got more than 10 or so emails. As someone who initiated a gun-related email campaign in the past I can assure you it's very unlikely any meaningful number of people emailed them, particularly because the law would have only affected a portion of the gun-owning public. Does Joe Shotgun really give a shit if my son in law from PA can shoot at my range? Third if you're right this would be the first time anyone has ever heeded anything initiated by the "usual suspects" of ANJRPC, NJ2AS, and NRA-ILA. Again highly unlikely. Bet you dollars to donuts this comes back from the dead in different form, or some time after January, 2018. Maybe the bill had some legislative defect. Maybe they thought CC would veto it. But mark my words this is not the last we've seen of it. I completely get being cynical, but there are some key points that you seem to be missing out on. First, your post doesn't indicate that you understand the effects of the two bills that were offered. Joe Shotgun might not care about someone else renting or borrowing a gun at the range, but he does care about citing in his muzzleloader at the WMA Range for Deer season. Second, there was plenty of time for an impact. ANJRPC had offered their concerns about the bill to the sponsor with no meaningful change resulting prior to the alert. The alert came out on Wednesday November 30. By Thursday evening the sponsor was calling for another meeting with ANJRPC, and the bills were pulled from the agenda on Friday December 2nd when that meeting took place. I am also hearing that NRA's link for sending emails to legislators had a significant response (from a different yet reliable source). Also, in the interview I did with Scott (I know, its long) he notes that having this bill tabled is a first for NJ. It didn't follow the usual script, likely because it wasn't the usual gun banning crowd that sponsored this bill. We likely wouldn't get this result with legislation sponsored by Lorretta. Finally, there is a segment of the admittedly small gun culture here that is focused on growing our ranks. This legislation would have been a death blow to that effort. People who care about sharing the shooting sports probably called multiple times, just like I did. The sponsor has said they want to work on it to bring it back in some modified form, so saying it isn't completely dead isn't news to anyone either. That doesn't mean that we can't be relieved to have beaten it back for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 8, 2016 I completely get being cynical, but there are some key points that you seem to be missing out on. First, your post doesn't indicate that you understand the effects of the two bills that were offered. Joe Shotgun might not care about someone else renting or borrowing a gun at the range, but he does care about citing in his muzzleloader at the WMA Range for Deer season. If concealed carry, magazine restrictions, exempt locations, justifiable need, and all the other stuff hasn't sufficiently excited enough people to raise an effective, vote-changing level of opposition I doubt that this bill would. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm dead against it on many levels but the only way it would affect me is if my range closes, which it would not. Hey I'm not arguing against defeating this bill or belittling any efforts towards that end. I'm simply doubting the rosy, implausable narrative you are presenting. Wanna place a small wager on the bill returning within 18 months? Maybe even a side bet on why it was withdrawn (hint: It wasn't your "damn emails" to quote Bernie). LtCpt assures you I'm no welcher. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 8, 2016 If concealed carry, magazine restrictions, exempt locations, justifiable need, and all the other stuff hasn't sufficiently excited enough people to raise an effective, vote-changing level of opposition I doubt that this bill would. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm dead against it on many levels but the only way it would affect me is if my range closes, which it would not. Hey I'm not arguing against defeating this bill or belittling any efforts towards that end. I'm simply doubting the rosy, implausable narrative you are presenting. Wanna place a small wager on the bill returning within 18 months? Maybe even a side bet on why it was withdrawn (hint: It wasn't your "damn emails" to quote Bernie). LtCpt assures you I'm no welcher. I think those other issues raise the average gun owner's ire as much or more than this bill did, the difference I think is in the response of the sponsor. I think it was because he is a "soft" anti, rather than a hardened anti, who would have completely ignored every email and phone call. The assistant in his office that I spoke with on Friday listened to my points and tried to argue for the bill. She also stated that the bill was being changed to address concerns. Other folks I know were told the same thing. Caputo's office was also telling callers about wanting to meet with, and meeting with, ANJRPC on Friday. So the timeline I describe is based on multiple sources that all fit together pretty reasonably. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites