PDM

If you meet with Mainor ask him if he will commit to only carrying 10 round magazines. If not, why is he so special?

Did you know that if you type in "njgunforum.com" you are autmatically redirected to the Brady Center website? I guess we are on their radar screen.

I believe that the complaint seeks to have the statute completely invalidated, in which case if the 3rd cir rules in our favor the statute would basically be rendered a nullity and it would be legal to carry with no permit whatsoever. I am guessing that the court would stay its order for a period of time, as happened in Illinois, to leave the current law in place and give NJ time to come up with something that satisfies the court's ruling. One option would be for NJ to keep all of the aspects of the statute the same, but change the justifiable need to include any expressed desire to defend oneself outside the home, or something like that. Or they could try to play games and narrow the definition (as one of the judges suggested could have been Gura's approach) of justifiable need without going all the way to shall issue.

Oh, you didn't catch the amendments (which not one person asked about). Let me fill you in: They fixed the glitch that would have caused this bill to only apply to rifle magazines. It now applies to all magazines. They also exempted retired law enforcement (so Mainor and Cryan won't have to worry about replacing their magazines). Sounds fair, right? As for "not compromising", it really ain't up to us, is it. I agree that we should keep writing, emailing, etc. to oppose this bill, but in the practice of law there is something called arguing in the alternative. You can ask for one thing (like no change to the mag limit) but also ask for something else if the first thing doesn't happen (if you are going to change the mag capacity limit, which I oppose, at lest include a grandfather clause). Not to be defeatist, but I think chances are good that this bill will pass. The only hope would then be a Christie veto. I don't see Christie outright vetoing the change from 15 to 10 -- leaves him subject to too much flak. He could, however, say, "I'd sign this bill but can't do it because it takes property of law abiding people with no compensation or turns them into felons. Add a grandfather clause and I'll sign it, just like the federal AWB had." The ball would then be tossed back to the legislature, he looks like a hero because he stood up to the anti-gun forces and appears "reasonable", but still has cover because he agrees to sign the bill as long as its "fair" to everyone. I could definitely see it going that way.

Holeee crap. In the first 2 minutes of argument the 3rd circuit explicitly acknowledged that the 2A applies outside the home. The woman from the NJ AG office is a total, top to bottom moron. She started witht he proposition that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home. One of the justices challenged her on that and she folded without as much as an argument and said, yes, it does!!! She then got thoroughly reamed on her public safety argument -- love how the justice brought up Vermont. Then the 1928 law comes up and she was clueless. She was completely overmatched and is a bumbling idiot. I agree that it would have been good for Gura to put something into the records showing that no one -- no one other than retired LEOs and connected politicians -- can get a permit. I don't know why he did that. And I never understood why they didn't introduce an equal protection argument. Even if it is a losing argument, it gets the bad facts re disparate treatment of citizens regarding a fundamental right before the court. I'm not too concerned about it however. The justices grilled Gura -- rightfully so -- but I am cautiously optimistic. The argument could have gone much, much worse for our side.

Kudos to NJ2AS and all who attended. I badly wanted to go but had work commitments I couldn't get out of, but I just made a $100 contribution to NJ2AS. It is heartening to see the grass roots activism spreading. I really loved how nervous Senator Weinberg sounded, and how she and others kept pointing out that the hundreds of people who showed up to oppose these bills are just some sort of "fringe." I think they were quite surprised b/c as far as I know nothing like this has happened before in this state on the gun issue. As has been mentioned by others, the one point that I was hoping someone would make is the fundamental unfairness of the double standard when it comes to the mag capacity limitation and other gun laws. I would have started by saying to Brian Miller and the other "antis" -- "You are not the enemy. We disagree completely on critical issues such as fundamental rights and how people can keep themselves safe, but I believe that although you are misguided you are sincere in your desire to make society safer. The real problem is the people sitting in front of us..." I would have then gone on to ask Miller and the others why, exactly, they think it is ok for Mainor and Cryan and other retired LEOs to keep their 15 round magazines? Training? Well the 20 second mag change belies that; many people in the audience were obviously much more highly trained than Mainor, etc., etc. We need to make the 2A/rights arguments and the "criminals don't obey the law" argument -- once or twice. But we really need to focus on ideas that everyone can relate to. Fundamental fairness, good governance, abuse of power, etc. I wish someone had called Cryan and Mainor out on that.

Why did no one mention the lack of a grandfather clause in the 10 rd magazine bill. And why do Cryan and Mainor get a pass as "retired law enforcement." It's the lack of fundamental fairness -- turning people into instant felons and taking their property. No one mentioned that.

Demonstrating outside his office might get his attention.

Holy crap. I paid $650 for my M&P Sport in July. Insanity.

I believe they screwed this up before. There are two places in the statute that refer to magazine capacity if I recall (don't have it in front of me). They only covered one apparently. It is abundantly clear that they don't bother reading, let alone thinking about, the bills that they spew forth.

The woman in Mainor's office didn't even ask for my name. She cut me off and asked me what I was calling to support or oppose and I told her and she said thanks and hung up. I am getting the impression that these people are swamped with calls, which is a good thing. Great news about Albano.

At this point I am fairly certain the 5 round mag bill won't make much progress. It's interesting that it isn't even scheduled for hearing on Wednesday. Senator Gordon, one of the sponsors of the 5 round bill, appeared at the same anti-gun rally as Senator Weinberg, a sponsor of the 10 round bill. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they coordinated this to make the 10 round bill look like the "compromise" position rather than the shafting that we all recognize it to be. My hope is that the lack of a grandfather clause will give Christie the cover to veto it. "I'm ok in principal with a 10 round limit, which was the limit under the Federal AWB and is the law in many other states, but won't sign a bill that turns citizens into retroactive criminals" or something like that. Of course, I also think it is possible that the bill will be amended to include some sort of grandfather clause before it hits the floor, in which case I am almost certain it would pass and get signed into law. Just a guess.

Yeah, I've pretty much been hunkered down in my den in my flannel robe watching Madmen on my 55" flatscreen, smoking my pipe and sipping a congac with my trusty golden retriever at my feet (and my 870 in reach at all times, of course).

Guys, I think we all agree that most politicians in this state (and elsewhere) are venal, self-serving, incompetent, more often than not corrupt, and completely unconcerned about individual rights. My point was, I think we need the African American and Latino community on our side to really make any progress in NJ. Sure, there are a precious few, but we need more. Again, I wasn't surprised by the comments by Baraka and other politicians at the Newark hearing. I was surprised -- due to my own ignorance mainly -- at the comments by members of the Newark community. They weren't yelling and ranting and raving about gun control (as the mostly white suburbanites in my town have been doing lately). They just want their kids to be safe. I didn't get the sense that this was an ideaological debate for them. Of course, they vote for politicians like Baraka, and I have no idea how that can change. A pro-freedom, more conservative (for lack of a better word) politician probably could never get the traction to make inroads in Newark, Trenton or Camden, no matter what the color of their skin. The white, liberal dean of Rutgers law school and Baraka were the only ones at that hearing who I heard come out with the typical progressive gun control garbage at that hearing. I think our biggest enemy is the liberal esablishment -- Weinberg, Buono, Cryan, Gordon -- etc in this state and on the Federal level. Again, I don't have any bright ideas, but finding some way to make greater inroads into minority communities would definitely help our cause. Same could be said for the Jewish community, but I think there is a small but growing movement under way there (at least the Orthodox Jewish community).

I went to the NJ SAFE Task Force hearing in Newark this past Thursday evening. The room was full -- over 100 people. The audience basically broke down this way: 70% vocal pro gun (virtually all white); 20% African American, local from Newark for the most part; 10% politicians, and a few random people whose main issue was mental health, not guns. What struck me is that the representatives of the Newark community, including community activists, were passionate, sometimes emotional, and not necessarily "anti-gun." My take away was that people like me living in suburbia read about what goes on in the inner city but don't really feel what is going on there. Listening to these people brought it home. The anguish of not knowing if your kid will come home in the evening. Poverty and lack of resources. Etc. The representatives from these areas are reflexively anti-gun. One idiot assemblyman (Ross Baraka [sp?]) made the ridiculous point that calling people law abiding is meaningless because law abiding people can become criminals, which is patently false based on every criminology study I've ever seen. However, I don't think the ordinary people that live in Newark feel that way. I didn't get the impression that they really are interested in stricter gun laws per se. It's the white liberals, like the law school dean, that want that. I got the impression that these people want real solutions -- keeping guns off the streets, social, economic and educational issues, etc. I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think that one way in which we could, theoretically make progress in thsi state on the gun rights issue is to seek dialogue with activists and other people living in urban areas. Any thoughts?

Does anyone know the deal with the 5 round mag bill? I only see the 10 round bill listed. Are they keeping that one "in reserve"?

I am going.

Our best hope of preventing either of these mag capacity bills from being pased is not 2A arguments but rather plain old common sense and fundamental fairness. I really believe that most people who read about this aren't aware of and haven't even considered the costs of such legislation. 1) legal citizen one day, instant felon the next, 2) law will effectively result in confiscation of tens of millions of dollars of property from law abiding citizens with no compensation, 3) de facto ban of most handguns, and 4) impeding ability of citizens to defend themselves (this is probably the argument that non-gun owners are least likely to accept). I plan on raising this at the hearing tomorrow in Newark. The problem is that even if we get their attention and they listen, the recommended "middle ground" may very well be a 10 round limit with a grandfather clause. That "solution" really only leaves us with argument #4 and of course 2A arguments, and the reality is that very few people in this state find those arguments compelling.

The proposed 5 round magazine limit is a ban on semi-automatic handguns.

I've had the same thought. I don't care anymore. We need to speak up effectively, intelligently, and respectfully but loudly. If we are at the point where we are afraid to speak up we are already doomed.

I will be at the hearing on Newark in Thursday night. I plan on emphasizing the fact that while I fully support measures to improve public safety, none of the proposed legislation will do that AND we need to consider the right and responsibility of each individual for his PERSONAL safety as well. NJ gun laws already significantly impede the exercise of that right and responsibility, and we certainly don't need more restrictions. I will point out that we in fact have a concealed carry permit law in this state that could and should enable law abiding citizens to provide for their personal safety while ALSO enhancing public safety. It is just that the law as applied only affords a privileged few to obtain a permit. That can and should be changed by adminsitrative action by having the Governor and Attorney General amend the NJ administrative code and issue a directive to police chiefs and judges that self-defense outside the home constitutes "justifiable need" under the statute. That would in fact open up carry permits to those who could pass the background checks and training and qualification requirements. After the laughter dies down I will then conclude by saying that, if the commitee won't recommend rationalizing the existing law, at the very least, this committee and the legislature must reject the proposed new legislation in light of its costs, which no one seems to have considered. I will use the proposed magazine capacity restrictions as examples, and list the ways in which these laws will harm law abiding citizens (turning us into instant felons, effectively resulting in economic loss b/c hundreds of thousands of magazines would need to be turned in or destroyed, mag capacity restriction would be a de facto gun ban, etc) with no --zero -- empirical evidence being offered that the changes will improve public safety by one iota. I will finally remind the committee that the 2A is not about "duck hunting" as Senator Gordon has suggested -- it is, whether they like it or not, about the fundamental human right of self defense.

Sent faxes to Sweeney and Weinberg. Can't locate Senator Gordon or Codey's faxes (they are the co-sponsors of the 5 round bill) but I will call them. Text of my fax: I am writing regarding the pending Senate bills that would reduce legal firearms magazine capacity from the current 15 round limit (which has been law for over 20 years) to either 10 or 5 rounds (without a grandfather clause!). One question: WHY? Has common sense completely gon out the window? An arbitrary reduction in legal magazine capacity to 5 or 10 rounds, as has been proposed, would have a very real and very negative impact on law abiding NJ gun owners. Such a change would: 1) turn law abiding people into instant felons and expose law abiding people to serious felony charges for simple possessory offenses; 2) have a severe financial impact on people who would need to dispose of numerous expensive firearms magazines without compensation; 3) constitute a back door de-facto firearms ban as many commonly-owned firearms would be rendered useless if no compatible reduced-capacity magazines are made available; and 4) seriously impede on law abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves. And what is the purported reason for the change? Is it because, as Senator Gordon has suggested, "no one needs more than 5 rounds to hunt a duck?" Is that a rationale for this legislation? The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting -- it is about the fundamental right of self-defense (please read the Heller and McDonald cases if you haven't already). You and all other legislators have sworn to uphold the Constitution and your consitutents expect you to consider the impact of proposed legislation. These bills, and the other 40 or so pending gun bills, would do nothing to improve public safety and would only harm law abiding citizens. I ask you not to bring them to the floor of the Senate

Oy. Kotkot -- first of all, the members of the task force aren't legislators. They are people appointed by the Governor to make recommendations. Second, this is serious business. I don't think flippant remarks or telling members of the task force -- including two former state atorrneys general -- that they should seek help from mental health "proffecionals" (or did you mean "professionals"?) will help our cause.

+1000. If you are expecting Rick Perry move to Texas. I think Christie is just about the best we can hope for on the gun issue in this state. I at least hold out hope that his common sense approach and willingness to swim against the tide may, just may result in him opposing some of the mroe draconian measures being proposed. I do think it can go either way and without a doubt the more thoughtful (and civil) letters, faxes, etc he receives the better.

I don't know. Seems to me that even a stock Harley would be more fun to look at than a plain Jane Glock 19, but again -- no right or wrong here. To each his own.