johnott

Instead of gun owners paying for it... how about everyone pay for it. Sort of like "no-fault" insurance. I wonder if the average person would be so willing to support the legislation then.

I've said it before, Law Enforcement Agencies seem to be adopting military style tactics more and more. They are starting to view everyday citizens as possible enemy combatants. I know that an LEO's job is not easy and that it comes with inherent dangers, but they know that when they sign up. They have their training and equipment to try and offset those dangers. "News-wise" it seems that instead of using cover and trying to persuade an individual to relinquish their firearm, they confront them directly and fire at the first opportunity. As far as these "No Hesitation" targets go... they promote "shoot first ask questions later". They portray an individual that already has the drop on you. If you find yourself in this situation then perhaps you aren't being careful enough. I don't care how they justify these targets, it looks like they're gearing up for urban warfare. Disclaimer: My opinion isn't directed at any specific person, group or agency in Law Enforcement; I'm only giving feedback on what I see in the news in general.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has anti-gunners bus-in from out of state. That's what the unions do when they want to push their agenda. They stack the deck with their supporters and then claim the majority has spoken. I'm probably wrong... but again it wouldn't surprise me.

I think the way Christie treats any new anti-gun legislation will have an impact on him at a National level. Since "Romney" there has been a huge spike in state and federal firearms legislation. Gun owners in every state are being assailed and the fear of losing our 2nd Amendment rights are being felt from coast to coast. Many in the firearm's community will be looking for a conservative candidate that will roll-back this anti-gun legislation and stand up for our constitutional rights. -I know I will.

I was over in Manheim Pa. (Lancaster county) yesterday and stopped in at a local gun shop... $15 for 100 rds. CCI 22LR -ouch! S&W .40 50 rds. FMJ $25. There are a lot of places that are bone dry... no ammo whatsoever. Forget about Walmart, it only comes in a little at a time (if at all) and what's delivered is gone in a few hours if not sooner. Supplies are definitely drying up all over. It's hit or miss whether or not you find any handgun or rifle ammo, and it's near impossible to find anything at a decent price. On a side note: I told a friend of mine in PA about NJ wanting to ban .50 cal rifles and he just shook his head. He uses a .50 to go deer hunting. He took a buck last year at 600 yards. I know he wouldn't be thrilled about giving up his rifle. I hope things get better before they get worse.

Welcome.

What a bunch of horse @#!%.

I emailed Christie twice last week and once today. I also emailed all my legislators (state and local) as well as the NJ Public Safety Committee members last week and then called them individually today as well. [i'm in district 3 as well, and have emailed and called Sweeney numerous times.]

I'm not one who believes in or readily accepts conspiracy theories... but the huge spike in high profile shootings in the past 4-5 months seems to defy the odds. I know the media has focused heavily on firearm's in recent months but I've been following the local and national news for years and this "epidemic" of gun related deaths is statistically out of whack. Does anyone else feel that way? I don't know the reason for it, but it is unusual and the timing is suspect. IMO.

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that a resident Florida CCW and non-resident CCW have the same application requirements and these requirements are stricter than PA requirements. So how can the PA Attorney General prohibit non-resident permits but allow resident permits? Is this apparent bias actionable? The PA state constitution protects the rights of their citizens to be armed for self protection, how can they disallow that same right to other legally licensed American citizens within their borders? Especially when those individuals have met requirements equal to or greater than those of the state of PA? This nonsense has got to stop. Lets hope National Reciprocity will some day be enacted and all this crap will become moot.

It seems at every turn this state lets us down. It's a shame because this state has a lot of potential. Christie says he's for "common sense" gun policies. (Since when does NJ have any gun policies that make sense?) He looks at gun control from a "law enforcement prospective"... that perspective is one of more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. If Christie is a good as it's gonna get then I hope to leave this state at the earliest possible convenience.

Good to know. Thanks. I hope the panel took it into consideration.

Not being able to make it to those meetings myself (and 2nd Amendment argument aside). I would have liked someone to have stated that one of the reasons we are against NEW firearms laws is because of the existing laws. NJ firearms laws are purposefully vague and a person is deemed guilty by default unless they meet an exemption. CCW is next to impossible to obtain, transporting a firearm is so ambiguous that we cover the topic day in and day out on the forums. Even LEO's have differing views. One mis-interpretation by a well meaning citizen could turn them into a felon, this is not right. Current laws need to be corrected before we'll even consider listening to new ones.

It's not that hard to do but it's harder than it has to be, especially if they already have a publicly posted email address. I think senators are just using this tactic as a way to avoid negative feedback. In this day and age where everyone uses email and texting... I find it objectionable that any Representative at the Federal level would effectively ban email communications with groups of citizens solely based upon their state of origin. Thereby leaving us to seek a slower more rudimentary means of contact.

I was at the computer this evening writing some emails to the US Senate Judiciary Committee members. I was expressing my opposition to pending firearms legislation and here is what I found: I had no problem emailing any of the Republican Senators, but when it came to the Dem's... the website of Dick Durbin of Illinois wouldn't accept any emails except from in-state constituents (you have to supply a valid Illinois mailing address and zip). The web-page of Richard Blumenthal of CT allows you to fill out the email form, but after you click "submit" you are informed that he is only accepting emails from CT constituents. They may be the Representatives for their respective states, but they are pushing gun control legislation that affects citizens from all states. They do have a snail mail address but IMO all US Senators should have equal access by all citizens.

An article has recently been published about the idea of a "civilian national security force" and the current stockpiling of ammo by DHS. http://www.wnd.com/2...ling-guns-ammo/ This article was an eye opener for me and certain theories were posed that gave me reason for concern. IMO: It could be possible, that our society is being manipulated in a calculated way through government intervention. An intervention that (at present time) is subtle in nature. The purpose of which may be to cause stress fractures in our society by provoking certain groups of it's citizenry to rebel. People will en-mass implore the government to save them from these "evil" elements. Letting no situation go to waste, the government will use the ensuing civil unrest as a vehicle for greater government regulation and control. Thus the civilian national security force comes into play along with DHS and whatever else the government choses to throw in. We must be very careful NOT to act in a way that sets off such a chain of events. We must pursue all the peaceful and legal means available so that we will not be labeled as extremists or lunatics. We need the support of all the American people and not just those who own firearms. Violent confrontation is what the other side is pushing for. We need to spread our message in a sane and rational manner and try to win others to our cause. Seeing mobs of disgruntled protesters dressed in camo with rifles slung over their shoulders scares a lot of people. (just saying). The other side loves it when we do that because we fall right into the stereotype they have created for us. We can win this debate if we are smart. P.S. On a different note.... If the NRA was smart they'd pick a new spokesperson... a "woman" would put a nice friendly face on the NRA. There must be a least one woman in this whole country who has the knowledge and personal appeal to fit the bill.

Let's not forget that Supreme Court Decisions can be reversed... it has been known to happen. If only the right court case came before them, they may have to turn around and affirm the "do not infringe" portion of the Second Amendment. (...I have a dream.)

I always viewed myself as an amiable fellow, I try to mind my own business and get along with others. As a whole, I think we in the gun community are the same way. Over the years, we (and those before us) have tried to be respectful of the fears and misconceptions that have permeated the thinking of the public at large. We have given in and accepted limitations and restrictions related to firearms even though there were no legal grounds for them to be enacted. We, out of respect and courtesy for our fellow citizens allowed this to allay their fears and to get along. We didn't have to do those things; the Second Amendment clearly exempts firearms from any restrictions with the words "shall not be infringed". Nevertheless, we wanted to be "good guys" and reasonable people so we allowed some restrictions and regulation. Where did being reasonable get us? Now the other side has taken that which we have allowed and are using it as a precedent for further action. Endless action for anything they deem is for the greater good or public safety... it's now becoming a blank check. We did not mind helping out, but now they've gone too far. Their ideology is out of sync with our Constitutional protections. I used to be in favor of "legislation" that would prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The argument was always framed so that you looked like a louse or a fool if you answered in the negative. Of course none of us would like to see a felon have access to firearms! BUT now I realize that giving up more and more of my rights won't accomplish that goal either. If they want to brand, tattoo, implant an ID chip under the skin of felons so they can be tracked and identified that's fine with me; but I see no reason that everyone be treated like a criminal in order to catch the few that are. If they truly want to do something meaningful to stop gun violence they should declare war on inner city gangs and stop gang related crime. We see the writing on the wall, and it's not a new message. It has been written by previous generations... and the message is -cherish and safeguard your freedoms. Exclaimer: I do not advocate anything other than lawful, peaceful protests, phone calls and letter writing, but we need to get everyone involved at some level. We also need to reach out to our fellow citizens and not just our legislators.

Even though the courts have ruled against the "prior restraint argument" I think their conclusion is wrong for the simple reason that unlike the First Amendment the Second has the qualifier "shall not be infringed". It seems our Founding Fathers knew that some restrictions on free speech may be necessary at times, but they stressed that restrictions should not be placed on the right to Bear Arms. No infringement does not mean, maybe a little is o.k. -it means NONE. The courts and many in the legislature may not like that fact but it's there. If the Second Amendment did NOT say "shall not be infringed" then we'd be hard pressed to argue against restrictions. The courts have to stop legislating by proxy through their opinions and step up and validate the Constitution and it's Amendments as they have been understood since their inception.

Do they know something we don't know? Good post.

Sounds good.

-Their solution would be to ban theaters. Just a thought, If the theater wasn't crowded would it be o.k.?

Got the same letter. Sadly, it's about the kind of response I expected.

Towards the end of the debate Chief Johnson was presented with statistical evidence to prove cities with the strictest gun control polices have the largest increase in firearms related deaths. At the same time, other cities who did not have gun control polices, were much safer. Johnson was asked why this was so. He side-stepped the question by saying that the reason Chicago has so many guns is because they are brought in from surrounding states. So.... the reason Chicago's gun control doesn't work is because the rest of us need to be more like Chicago?! What kind of biased lopsided debate is this. A debate should be about facts not opinions. Most of the Senators themselves are not very knowledgeable concerning constitutional law, the 2nd Amendment or firearms. They should recuse themselves from the proceedings. There needs to be a vetting process for the participants of this debate. Both sides need to be represented fairly. In my opinion I think this debate is a waste of time. What we really need is to settle the meaning of the 2nd Amendment once and for all. The current debates and legislation may all be moot. Everyone needs to be on the same page, using the same baseline. Only then can we truly proceed to discuss the topic of firearms in our society. The argument needs to be turned around. It should not be about restricting firearms, it should be about defining our rights concerning firearms. An example of the ridiculous burden already placed upon firearms owners... If you want to hike the Appalachian Trail (over 2,000 miles of it) or any portion thereof... and you have a license to carry; you are expected to know and follow ALL the firearms law of every state, county, and municipality or town you cross. That includes every Federal law and the law of each states Fish and Game Commission as well. That's insane. That's infringement. - I have to stop here, as I am preaching to the choir. (Just had to vent a little).

Emailed as well.