TheSingularity

Yes, but they *are* trying to tell me which guns I can keep and use (if necessary) in my house. 10 rounds or fewer?

I am definitely the first, last, and only responder in my household. Anyone else is just coming to take away the bodies.

The thing that really gets me is that some "victims"/families of gun violence fully EXPECT to have some sort of enhanced seat at the lawmaking table. As if it is some sort of justice or quid-pro-quo for the suffering they went through. What a dangerous and flawed concept this is.

Sorry, I misspoke in my prior post. I said gun control laws. I meant to say First Responder Disarmament Laws. We are the first responders.

I should probably mention the thing that got me fired up about this issue. I read that the parents of the Newtown victims were upset that Congress/Obama didn't consult with them - at least not enough - as lawmakers formulated their ideas for proposed new gun control measures. I am very sad for these families. Thinking about their losses breaks my heart to this day... ...But they have ZERO more say on the substance of proposed new gun control laws than I do.

Very true - good points

Vlad - believe me, I agree with you. I just don't think that those who are pushing all of these First Responder Disarmament Laws (my term for gun control laws) see it that way. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think being a victim of gun violence gives you any more of an enlightened view than a non-victim has. If anything, I think there's an argument to be made that the viewpoint is biased. A victim of gun violence shouldn't expect to have any more of a seat at the table on gun control issues than anybody else. If you ask a bunch of millionaire lottery winners what they think about the idea of buying lottery tickets, they'll probably tell you it's a very smart thing to do.

I pay more taxes than the next guy. I have more "hands on" experience with this issue, and it has had a significant, direct impact on my life. I am a bigger "victim" of the tax system... Does that give me more say on how the government should be run? I am a father. I have more "hands on" experience with this issue, and it has had a significant, direct impact on my life. I am faced with the challenges and obstacles of raising children... Does that give me more say on abortion related issues? Funny... because I bet the typical argument against both of these two above points would be... those two factors actually cut *against* your credibility on those two issues. They make you biased on those particular issues, watering down the value of your personal viewpoint...

I am just trying to understand the rationale here. So, for congressional hearings on proposed gun control laws, we've all seen it - they routinely bring in these victims, their family members, etc. Are they saying that, due to their "victim" status, their words and their personal viewpoints should carry more weight? I am not saying I don't sympathize with many of these people. All I am trying to do is get down to the underlying premise. Does "victim" status mean that you somehow "paid your dues," or that your viewpoint is somehow more enlightened than the next person, or that your opinions should carry more weight?

Christie has already irreversibly damaged his image in the eyes of conservatives around the country. Accepting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, and the $60 billion Sandy federal aid package, to be specific. In my opinion, as difficult as it is to come to grips with this thought, the 10 round mag limit is as good as law. In a strange way, Sandy caused damage to a lot more than we originally might have thought. Namely, Christie's core political principles, and our 2nd Amendment rights here in NJ.

Not the police. Not the "authorities." US. WE are. Henceforth, I am going to refer to all of the NJ "gun control" bills as the First Responder Disarmament Laws.

I find it very telling how you never hear an AR-15 being referred to as "military style" when it's in the hands of a law enforcement officer. What I mean is, nobody seems to mind that a so-called "weapon of war" is being used in a clear-cut, off-military-battlefield context. So, evidently, people seem to be fine with the fact that a "military style" rifle could be used for something other than military battlefield use. Namely, to protect and serve. That's what police do, correct? I submit to you that regular citizens have the right to the same arms, for this same reason.

Best firearms shop in NJ in my opinion. Highly recommended.

Incredibly, the way I read the list, they literally included those two specifically under the heading of "AR types". So that is the level of comprehension of firearms that went into this proposed AWB bill. Feinstein also had a Hi Point 995 as one of the guns on display. She was standing right in front of one.

...according to today's draft of the AWB bill.

Reading this makes me very proud to own a Smith.

Here is the way I think I would approach the legal argument. NJ's routine granting of CCWs to retired LEOs has the effect of essentially setting the real-life, demonstrated standard for what constitutes "justifiable need." So there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these examples that NJ has granted over the last several years. And so, based on this mountain of real-life examples, "justifiable need" really means: you've dealt with the public in an official capacity that might have pissed off a couple of people who, hypothetically - and only hypothetically - might want to seek revenge some day. If this is the true NJ justifiable need standard, then it opens up the CCW door for so many others. The "other reasons" why NJ grants CCWs to retired LEOs - the "pat on the back for a career well done", the "look for our bat signal in case we ever need your help" - I say NJ wouldn't, and couldn't, admit that these were actually factors that influenced their CCW approval process. I think, in its defense, NJ would basically be forced to stay within the four corners of justifiable need, and to shove the square peg of all their retired-cop CCW approvals, into the round hole of justifiable need.

Thank you! I get very passionate when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

Here is the core problem. There is a perception, by many of the regular people in this country, that the "ruling class" wants to set the rules for the ordinary people, while never intending to be bound by these same rules themselves. The fact that NJ routinely grants CCWs to retired LEOs is, I think, reasonably compelling evidence of this reality. The message is: work for us, with us, as one of us, and we'll take care of you. We'll make sure you are taken care of - that you will be exempt from the rules that bind the regular people. It will be a "perk" of your job - you're with US. Stepping back a little bit, and looking at the big picture, it's just a very, very corrosive policy for a government to have. It the type of thing that eats away at the trust people have in their government. Find fault with that.

I know there are LEOs on this board. Those of them that agree with my thinking know that I mean them no disrespect. I am not advocating for the playing field to be leveled by taking away the 2nd amendment rights that are rightly theirs. Where am I going with this thread? I am not sure, but ANYWHERE is better, and more fair, than where we are. Seems to me there are some very solid, rational arguments to be made in a legal context on this subject. While I am not the right person to make them, I just feel the need to point them out.

Just to be clear, so I understand: So NJ routinely grants CCWs to retired cops in order to comply with this FEDERAL law? That is NJ's rationale? I've got another federal law to highlight. It's called the 2nd amendment . And its plain language tells me that the regular people have the same right to bear arms that the "authorities" have.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think retired cops should be turned down for CCWs in NJ. Nothing against retired cops, or current cops, by any stretch. But with respect to CCW, the rationale for differentiating retired cops from most law abiding citizens is a complete fiction. I am open to any valid points against my arguments. But there are none.

Find flaw with my arguments. I submit to you - it is impossible.

My point is this: every argument that I've seen FOR the ability of retired cops getting CCWs in NJ, also equally applies to others who are routinely turned down for CCW. Possibility of retaliation? Ok, then why not prosecuters? Possibility of "helping out" in an emergency situation? Ok, then what about former military? Military reserves? Of basically any able-bodied person with a level head on their shoulders?

Interesting - because my understanding is that retired/former (and even current) prosecuters in NJ are basically never approved for CCW permits (?). And those people very literally put people in prison as well.