Sniper22

Senate Committee Resumes Gun Control Push Monday

21 posts in this topic

Saw this in a NRA email:

On Monday May 21, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing at 1 p.m. in Room 4 of the Statehouse Annex, and half a dozen anti-gun bills are on the agenda.  

The Assembly versions of these bills have already passed the Assembly, and the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee approved the Senate companion bills roughly a month ago.  However, many of the bills have been double-referenced, and the Budget and Appropriations Committee is going to discuss amendments and fiscal impacts. 

Gun owners should continue to strongly voice opposition to these bills.   Even amended, these bills are bad and will do nothing to enhance school or public safety.  If the legislation clears the committee Monday, they would still have to pass the Senate.

The following bills are on Monday's agenda:

  • S.102 by Sen. Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D) is a magazine and gun ban.

S.2259 by Sen. Richard Codey (D) creates extreme risk protection orders whereby firearms can be seized and constitutional rights suspended with little to no due process.

S.160 by Sen. Vin Gopal (D) would allow for suspension of gun rights by unaccountable “health professionals.”

S.2376 by Sen. Linda Greenstein (D) codifies New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard for the issuance of concealed carry permits.

S.2245 by Sen. Fred Madden, Jr. (D) bans handgun ammunition which is already banned under federal law. 

S.2374 by Sen. Linda Greenstein (D) would require background checks on all firearm transfers.

S.2465 by Sen. Joseph Cryan (D) would prohibit purchasing firearm components to unlawfully manufacture a firearm without a serial number.

Please contact members of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and respectfully request that these bills be opposed.

Senate Budget and Appropriates Committee:

Sen. Paul Sarlo (Chair)
(201) 804-8118

Sen. Brian Stack (Vice-Chair)
(201) 376-1942

Sen. Dawn Marie Addiego
609-654-1498

Sen. Anthony Bucco
973-627-9700

Sen. Nilsa Cruz-Perez
(856) 541-1251 (Camden)
(856) 547-4800 (Audubon)
(856) 853-2960 (Woodbury)

Sen. Sandra Cunningham
201-451-5100

Sen. Patrick Diegnan Jr.
908-757-1677

Sen. Linda Greenstein
609-395-9911

Sen. Declan O’Scanlon Jr.
732-933-1591

Sen. Steve Oroho
(973) 300-0200 (Sparta)
(908) 441-6343 (Allamuchy)

Sen. Teresa Ruiz
973-484-1000

Sen. Troy Singleton
856-234-2790

Sen. Samuel Thompson
732-607-7580

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 Round mag limit:
 
Identical Bill Number: A2761    (3R) 
Last Session Bill Number: S818   A3327 

Weinberg, Loretta   as Primary Sponsor
Gill, Nia H., Esq.   as Primary Sponsor
Gopal, Vin   as Co-Sponsor
Greenstein, Linda R.   as Co-Sponsor
Turner, Shirley K.   as Co-Sponsor
 
 
 
 
     
 

1/9/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
5/21/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading

Introduced - - 8 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Statement - SLP 4/16/18 - 2 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Reprint - - 18 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Reprint - - 18 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Statement - SBA 5/21/18 1R - 3 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 

Committee Voting:
SLP  4/16/2018  -  r/Sca  -  Yes {4}  No {1}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call
SBA  5/21/2018  -  r/Sca  -  Yes {8}  No {4}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call
  Sarlo, Paul A. (C) - Yes Stack, Brian P. (V) - Yes Addiego, Dawn Marie - No
  Bucco, Anthony R. - No Cruz-Perez, Nilsa - Yes Cunningham, Sandra B. - Yes
  Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. - Yes Gopal, Vin - Yes Greenstein, Linda R. - Yes
  O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - No Oroho, Steven V. - No Singleton, Troy - Yes

 

Private Sales Illegal:

Identical Bill Number: S2374    (1R)

Greenwald, Louis D.   as Primary Sponsor
Holley, Jamel C.   as Primary Sponsor
Moriarty, Paul D.   as Primary Sponsor
Murphy, Carol A.   as Co-Sponsor
Eustace, Tim   as Co-Sponsor
Vainieri Huttle, Valerie   as Co-Sponsor
Downey, Joann   as Co-Sponsor
Houghtaling, Eric   as Co-Sponsor
Benson, Daniel R.   as Co-Sponsor
Pinkin, Nancy J.   as Co-Sponsor
Jasey, Mila M.   as Co-Sponsor
McKnight, Angela V.   as Co-Sponsor
Reynolds-Jackson, Verlina   as Co-Sponsor
Mosquera, Gabriela M.   as Co-Sponsor
Chiaravalloti, Nicholas   as Co-Sponsor
Armato, John   as Co-Sponsor
Gusciora, Reed   as Co-Sponsor
Mazzeo, Vincent   as Co-Sponsor
Lampitt, Pamela R.   as Co-Sponsor
 
 
 
 
     
 

2/1/2018 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee
3/5/2018 Reported out of Assembly Comm. with Amendments, 2nd Reading
3/26/2018 Passed by the Assembly (62-10-4)
4/5/2018 Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading
4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
5/21/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading

Introduced - - 9 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Statement - AJU 2/28/18 - 1 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Reprint - - 8 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Statement - SLP 4/16/18 1R - 1 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 

Committee Voting:
AJU  2/28/2018  -  r/Aca  -  Yes {5}  No {1}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call
SLP  4/16/2018  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {5}  No {0}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call
SBA  5/21/2018  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {10}  No {0}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {2}  -  Roll Call

Session Voting:
Asm.  3/26/2018  -  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {62}  No {10}  Not Voting {3}  Abstains {4}  -  Roll Call

 

Extreme Risk Protection Order Act:

Note the Republican "not voting" and "abstain"

S2259 Sca (1R) "Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018." 
Budget and Appropriations 

 

Identical Bill Number: A1217    (ACS/2R) 
Last Session Bill Number: A2390   S370 

Codey, Richard J.   as Primary Sponsor
Weinberg, Loretta   as Primary Sponsor
Singleton, Troy   as Co-Sponsor
Turner, Shirley K.   as Co-Sponsor
 
 
 
 
     
 

3/8/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee

Introduced - - 20 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Statement - SLP 4/16/18 - 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Reprint - - 19 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 
Fiscal Estimate - 5/7/18; 1R - 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format 

Committee Voting:
SLP  4/16/2018  -  r/Sca  -  Yes {4}  No {0}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {1}  -  Roll Call
  Greenstein, Linda R. (C) - Yes Lagana, Joseph A. (V) - Yes Bateman, Christopher - Abstain
  Cryan, Joseph P. - Yes O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - Not Voting Sacco, Nicholas J. - Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update from NRA's email today:

Yesterday, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee considered and passed multiple anti-gun measures.  The below listed bills will now head to the Senate floor.  Companion versions of these bills have already passed the Assembly, so your Senator needs to hear from you now more than ever.  Please contact your state Senator and urge them to OPPOSE these gun control bills.

One of the scheduled bills, S.2259 by Sen. Richard Codey (D), was held from the agenda and not considered.  S.2259 creates extreme risk protection orders whereby firearms can be seized and constitutional rights suspended with little to no due process.  The bill fails to penalize those who fabricate accusations, and it does nothing to improve public safety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe he'll kill the vote on the Senate floor???
Ha Ha... I know, pipe dream...
 


He can still do that. If he does it certainly will send a bigger message.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SENATE COMMITTEE PASSES 6 BILLS, "HOLDS" 7TH BILL  

On May 21, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee passed 6 of the 7 anti-gun bills it was considering, and “held” the 7th bill, ostensibly to allow additional time for amendments that were not ready at the hearing. 

The bill held was S2259so-called “extreme risk protection order” legislation that provides for the unconstitutional suspension of Second Amendment rights and seizure of firearms with no advance due process. It also fails to penalize those who fabricate allegations simply to harass those with whom they disagree. We will have further updates on this bill as it moves through the legislative process. 

We anticipate additional legislative activity on these bills throughout the State House during the last week of May and the first week of June. Gun owners should plan to mount a renewed and sustained grassroots campaign fighting these bills after Memorial Day weekend. 

The bills that passed out of committee are:

S10(Magazine Ban / Gun Ban) Criminalizes possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Turns 1 million law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. No grandfathering of existing magazines (though the Assembly amendment providing for permanent blocking of non-compliant magazines has been adopted in the Senate version). Will be ignored by criminals and madmen. Makes no one safer. Interferes with ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

S160 (Allows Suspension of Gun Rights by Unaccountable “Health Professionals”). Authorizes firearms seizure and suspension of Second Amendment rights when mental health “professionals” think someone poses risk. Allows marriage counselors, social workers and nurses to cause suspension of rights. Allows forfeiture of firearms without compensation to owner. No penalty for fabricating allegations to harass gun owners.

S2376 (Kills Self-Defense) – Cements NJ’s unconstitutional “justifiable need” carry permit standard into statute to prevent most law-abiding citizens from ever exercising the right to self-defense with a firearm outside the home. No one would be eligible for a NJ carry permit unless they had previously been attacked or received specific verifiable threats.

S2245 (Bans Ammunition That is Already Federally Banned). Bans ammunition that is already banned under federal law. Completely redundant with pre-existing law, makes no one safer, criminals will ignore, changes nothing -- a complete waste of legislative resources. Squanders an opportunity to severely punish the criminal misuse of ALL ammunition, not just one class of ammunition.

S2374 (Background Checks on Sales That Already Require Background Checks) Mandates background checks on private sales of firearms that already require background checks under state law. Redundant with existing law, makes no one safer, criminals will ignore, changes nothing – a complete waste of legislative resources.

S2465 (Criminalizes purchase of components to manufacture unserialized firearms) Note: This legislation has not yet been heard in Assembly committee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, capt14k said:

So much for Sweeney killing the bills in committee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah but he was the ace in the hole...right?

 

Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but he was the ace in the hole...right?
 
Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits 
 
 


Exactly. I am told lawsuits are coming but I got no explanation why they don't already exist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 


Exactly. I am told lawsuits are coming but I got no explanation why they don't already exist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think they have to be signed into law, first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

I think they have to be signed into law, first.

This. People may complain about having to wait but there is an advantage to the challenge side too.  If you filed a suit before the bill was signed then it could be changed last minute in a way that invalidates your challenge but doesn’t change the intent of the bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This. People may complain about having to wait but there is an advantage to the challenge side too.  If you filed a suit before the bill was signed then it could be changed last minute in a way that invalidates your challenge but doesn’t change the intent of the bill. 
Are you guys serious? How about the laws we already have. I am well aware you can't file suits for theoretical laws or bills.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Are you guys serious? How about the laws we already have. I am well aware you can't file suits for theoretical laws or bills.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Forgive me. I assumed you were talking about the bills this thread is focused on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me. I assumed you were talking about the bills this thread is focused on. 
That would mean staying on topic. That doesn't happen here.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Who’s funding these lawsuits?
Lawsuit Fairy.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now