Newtonian 453 Posted December 8, 2016 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. Trump recently wasted an hour or two meeting Al Gore. I believe Avunka or Melanoma or whoever also met with Gore's entourage. They wasted a couple of hours on this hypocritical, pathologically-lying lunatic, then went ahead and appointed a climate change denier to head the EPA. Bravo I say. In this gun rights climate, where on a scale of 1 to 10 the U.S. average is 8 or so and NJ is around 2, you don't introduce a bill with such wide-ranging implications, and for a demonstrably idiotic purpose, unless you're a sick, spiteful individual. Caputo didn't write this during his lunch break one day. He had plenty of help, probably from national anti-gun organizations. He is demonstrating his creds as a bona fide shit-eating liberal to grease the way for whatever comes after this gig. "In 2016 I introduced the only bill in NJ history that addressed the epidemic of suicides at gun ranges." I propose a $50 bet that we'll see essentially the same bill by March, 2018, and $25 that it was withdrawn for some techno-legal defect or because the police objected. Let's just stick with that, put our money where our mouths are. I won't even bother you about the effect of "our input" because based on history it's simply ludicrous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 8, 2016 I propose a $50 bet that we'll see essentially the same bill by March, 2018, and $25 that it was withdrawn for some techno-legal defect or because the police objected. LEO's absolutely objected to these, as the laws were carelessly crafted to technically prevent them from using the range, even their own ranges, without following the same stupid rules. (Another item that I believe was discussed in the interview with Bach. There's so much there I simply can't recap it all in text.) Also, legislators don't write their own bills. Office of Legislative Services is responsible for actually crafting the language. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 8, 2016 LEO's absolutely objected to these, as the laws were carelessly crafted to technically prevent them from using the range, even their own ranges, without following the same stupid rules. (Another item that I believe was discussed in the interview with Bach. There's so much there I simply can't recap it all in text.) Also, legislators don't write their own bills. Office of Legislative Services is responsible for actually crafting the language. I'm not referring to the physical writing but conceptualization. Caputo probably doesn't shoot or know anyone affected by gun range suicides. This was probably the furthest thing from his mind. Amazing that he could come up with all those ideas and restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cereza 106 Posted December 8, 2016 Also, legislators don't write their own bills. Office of Legislative Services is responsible for actually crafting the language. They SUCK at their jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 8, 2016 They SUCK at their jobs. Haha, agreed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Willett 70 Posted December 8, 2016 I'm not referring to the physical writing but conceptualization. Caputo probably doesn't shoot or know anyone affected by gun range suicides. This was probably the furthest thing from his mind. Amazing that he could come up with all those ideas and restrictions. I don't think anyone I have asked yet has seen this specific proposal before. It's basically a custom application of the Universal Background Check conceptual framework. Fortunately, for other states, most don't have these stupid FPID, PPP credentials on which to base a law like this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites