While tooling around the NJ Legislature website, I found this press release on bill A3807 which would reduce magazine limits to 10rounds.

 

http://www.assemblydems.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=3734

 

And it contains the never too old and tired to use talking point:

 

"If we can save even one innocent life through common-sense legislation like this, it will be worth it."

 

and this is rich too:

 

This type of measure has been successful in the past, and if we can re-implement it, all New Jerseyans will be that much safer

And still no text of the bill on the state website

So no way to know whether grandfathering is included, or if we are to be royally and totally fooked by the dems here in the PRNJ (again)

they just dont get it!

here is my rather lengthy face book response

I know he won't respond.. I know he doesn't care.. but I was bored so made the effort..

 

 

How can a logically thinking human being think that things like magazine limitations, gun bans, accessory limitations like those utilized under the "assault weapon ban" do anything to curb crime? You already have laws on the books preventing murder, robbery, assault, etc. yet year after year people shoot each other, people stab each other, people rob each other. Why do these laws not prevent the crime? The answer is simple; crimes are committed by criminals, not law abiding citizens.

 

I am not against gun control, it is actually very difficult to buy a gun in NJ, and that is just fine. I guess that the high level of difficulty involved in legally purchasing a firearm is in place to prevent terrorists, gang members, and other undesirable people from purchasing firearms. When I decided I wanted to purchase a firearm in NJ this is what happened. I first had to go to my police department, and at that time I was fingerprinted and asked a series of questions. The state then did a complete background check, this included references. After all of that was completed and the state confirmed that I was a citizen of good moral standing and fit to own a firearm I was given a license that enabled me to purchase firearms, but the checks didn't stop there. Every time I go to the store to buy a new firearm, they do an additional background check to be sure that I had not somehow become a criminal in that time period, and that is just for a rifle. If I decide to buy another handgun I need to go back to the police station yet again and have another background check done so I can obtain a special permit that enables me to go to the gun store and have my background checked yet a 3rd time to again be sure I am not a criminal before I can take possession of said firearm. This lengthy redundant process is the norm in NJ by which my ability to purchase a firearm is determined. All of my firearms have been purchased legally within this state. With that said the system works, but it ONLY works for those of us who are honest.

 

I invested a ton of time effort and money to do things correctly. If I were a criminal, or had criminal intent do you think I would go down to the police station, and wait months to only be denied? Criminals don't legally purchase firearms or accessories, now you can point to atrocities like those that occurred in Arizona, but this law or any law would not stop someone insane from acting out. Look at individuals like Timothy McVeigh, this individual took the lives of many, and didn’t load a single magazine, or pull a single trigger, are his victims any less dead? Are the families any less hurt?

 

The point of all this is simple, while your intention may be good; the scope of the law does NOTHING to actually curb crime or punish those that commit crime. There is currently a 15 round magazine limitation in NJ, how many illegally purchased black market firearms were affected by that 15 round magazine capacity? The answer is likely zero. I am not saying we should operate in a "wild west" type lawless society, but in the same breath I fail to see the point of something as petty as a magazine reduction. It is quite obvious that people who are shooting others, people who would be considered "terrorists", are not going to be concerned with ANY law you could dream up. Crime is a big problem, so get tough on crime. Create legislation that punishes the act more severely, bring back the death penalty. Do something that will net results against criminals, but please drop this legislation because it will only have impact on honest law abiding gun enthusiasts.

 

I would like to extend an offer to you, one so that you may understand we are not a bunch of gun wielding loons. Come out to my local county run range one Sunday morning (I will bring the coffee you can bring the press). Come out and see the faces behind this war, meet some of us. Dare I say take a couple shots with us, shooting is a fantastic hobby that can challenge someone both physically and mentally. Unfortunately people die every day, people die at the hands of drugs, guns, knives, alcohol, and so on... You cannot simply demonize every item that represents the slightest bit of danger, if you did that no one would be allowed to ever walk out of the house in the morning. I have taken the time to write this because my intentions are sincere not to mock, I could (like some) sit here and just bad mouth you, but I instead hope you take me up on the offer and actually come out to the range and meet some of the people your law will impact. If you take the time to read this I appreciate it, if you take the time to actually consider my words I offer you a heartfelt thank you.

Gee! I wonder how many people have been killed in the US in car crashes since the beginning of the year. Apparently not enough to warrant legislation banning cars!

vladtepes, great response. You should send that to some news outlets and use the invitation angle. Perhaps the press will latch on to it and he will be forced to respond.

Yeah great response. The only thing I think you could add to it is that car accidents kill more people a year than guns. Should we put a limiter on the car so it can only go 66 miles an hour?

here is my rather lengthy face book response

I know he won't respond.. I know he doesn't care.. but I was bored so made the effort..

 

 

Guarantee that you will get a form letter back saying: Thank you for contacting this office about XYZ - and then just go on to reiterate why he thinks it's a good thing. It will address none of the points you made. There will be no indication that he even took the time to read it - it's about getting re-elected and capitalizing on a tragedy to do so.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Yeah great response. The only thing I think you could add to it is that car accidents kill more people a year than guns. Should we put a limiter on the car so it can only go 66 miles an hour?

 

 

 

what makes 66 mph a safe speed? what is the slowest speed in which you could absolutely not die.. that would have to be the max.. LOL

I dont think this will go anywhere out of committee. Sweeney promised us that he would not pass any more anti gun legislation as long as he is senate pres.

I dont think this will go anywhere out of committee. Sweeney promised us that he would not pass any more anti gun legislation as long as he is senate pres.

 

But... He is a politician. Insert cliche here regarding Politicians and Diapers.

Absolutely. That is the caveat.

So where was this kind of ban "successful in the past"

 

.....yeah that's what I thought

So where was this kind of ban "successful in the past"

 

.....yeah that's what I thought

 

 

This is the last time it was succesful.

Wait, they told us years ago that limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds was going to make all New Jersey citizens safe. Now they say 10 rounds will make us safe. So then they admit that limiting the capacity didn't do anything the last time.

Wait, they told us years ago that limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds was going to make all New Jersey citizens safe. Now they say 10 rounds will make us safe. So then they admit that limiting the capacity didn't do anything the last time.

They admit nothing.

I still don't understand how this is "common sense" legislation. What is common sense about it? Less bullets = WHAT?

+1 to Vlad

 

This is what I brought up at the NJ2AS meeting. That the anti-gun rights politicians and groups have admitted to themselves that they cannot completely take away our guns. They are now focusing at restricting gun rights into a corner. Their main goal is to implement what they call "common sense and reasonable" laws to restrict gun owners down to owning only single shot non-SA guns. This is the new danger we have to face. They can claim they are not infringing on 2A rights, hence not going against the latest SCOTUS decisions.

 

There will be a constant battle between degrees of restrictions in the future. We are seeing the first round now. I think both sides know there is a line in the sand when it comes to private ownership of arms, i.e. howitzers and rocket launchers, etc. They will now focus all of their efforts and energy on pushing this line closer and closer to gun owners being restricted to .22lr single shot BA rifles. Take a look at Canadian laws, it is very similar situation with "prohibited weapons", "restricted weapons", etc. It's like NJ gun laws on steroids.

Wait, they told us years ago that limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds was going to make all New Jersey citizens safe. Now they say 10 rounds will make us safe. So then they admit that limiting the capacity didn't do anything the last time.

They would probably take it all the way to single shot guns, and then try to ban guns altogether. So to answer your question, they will NEVER admit that limiting capacity does nothing. They just know that they can't take everything at once.

how would pre-ban magazines work? would you have to register your magazines? do they even have serial numbers that you could register?

This is not a bad law, they are only trying to do the right thing. Which is saving lives. I believe we should support it as it's just common sense.

^^^^ Your sarcasm is too funny lol

Sometimes I wonder where these what they think logical proposals come from? Do they all lay in bed together pondering on what ignorant law they can create next?

 

First off any criminal with any intent to harm using a firearm will not go through the procedures that we follow in order to support a hobby. He/she will obtain illegal firearms, illegally. Their not going to wait 8 months, register to their name, and complete their grand plan. It's all a means of keeping the honest people honest.

 

Second, this same criminal will NOT care of the states magazine capacity. If the intent is harm their going full capacity to maximize damage. Do you really think a criminal will say to himself "Oh no, I'm going to have to leave this 100 rnd drum at home, I have to make sure I comply with the regulations before I go on my heist."

 

And now I come off my soapbox less angry.

I wonder what it would be like to live in America instead of NJ...

I wonder what it would be like to live in America instead of NJ...

 

 

hopefully by this time next year I will be able to answer that very question..

Banning all cars would prevent millions of traffic deaths. If it saves even one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Confining all people to their homes under a curfew between 8pm and 6am would prevent many deaths. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Banning any book that contains violence would prevent people from getting bad thoughts and committing crimes. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

Banning all cars would prevent millions of traffic deaths. If it saves even one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Confining all people to their homes under a curfew between 8pm and 6am would prevent many deaths. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Banning any book that contains violence would prevent people from getting bad thoughts and committing crimes. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

Stop doing that.

 

You're confusing a perfectly legitimate (to them) argument with meaningless facts and plain old common sense. There'll be none of that in our gubbermint. How can they be expected to inflame the ignorant masses if you keep clouding the issue? Shame on you for even thinking that way.

 

Now, drink your Kool-Aid and get in line for your lobotomy.

Gee! I wonder how many people have been killed in the US in car crashes since the beginning of the year. Apparently not enough to warrant legislation banning cars!

 

I feel the same way... my goodness, even if guns were outlawed in the USA, guess who's gonna' still get guns? The criminals and we (the innocent) are left defenseless. I really am fed up with these wacky marxist/progressives and their unconstitutional laws and thought processes. Look at India... highest murder rate by firearms yet firearms are illegal. The innocent people are not the problem. I was thinking about this when I was at Disney World yesterday. We were staying at Bay Lake Towers and everything is locked down. You need a room key to enter the front door, to enter the pool, to enter the property and to enter your room. I thought to myself that the 99% of innocent people are inconvenienced due to the 1% of criminals. What a pain... if a criminal is going to get in, he will. All he has to do is either get a room or stand by the door and follow someone through. Locks are not there for the law abiding citizen they are there because of the criminal but once again the innocent person gets screwed.

 

Same with gun laws... we are sitting ducks. We were at the Orlando airport getting some dinner waiting for the plane and my son said "Dad, how come those cops are allowed to have guns in the airport?" I thought about it and had no answer... then he said something that intrigued me. He said "what happens if that cop lost it (went postal) and just started shooting people...?" You know what, my son is right, we would be screwed! No way to defend ourselves, we are sitting ducks. Well these gun laws are no different..... the government is giving the power to the wrong people and it is Unconstitutional, yet they don't care. Once power is shifted completely to the government or completely to the people then that is not good. A balance of limited government the way this country was set up is the only way it will work. There are three types of governments:

1) Total or totalitarian (Marxist, Fascist, Theocracy, Monarchy.... they all end up in the same bad place)

2)Anarchy... not good either.

3)Limited government... both keep each other in check.

 

Unless we get back to founding principals (which I doubt more and more each day) we will end up with scenario #1.

Banning all cars would prevent millions of traffic deaths. If it saves even one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Confining all people to their homes under a curfew between 8pm and 6am would prevent many deaths. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Banning any book that contains violence would prevent people from getting bad thoughts and committing crimes. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

I assume this is sarcasm... if not, you are one brainwashed.... well, ummm....to be nice...individual.

Banning all cars would prevent millions of traffic deaths. If it saves even one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Confining all people to their homes under a curfew between 8pm and 6am would prevent many deaths. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

 

Banning any book that contains violence would prevent people from getting bad thoughts and committing crimes. If this saves just one life wouldn't it be worth it?

You're missing an essential element of their argument. Cars, books, etc. have uses that are beneficial to society. A curfew would be incredibly burdensome on society. "Hi cap" magazines, in contrast, have no utility, their argument goes, particularly since people are fully capable of defending themselves with a 10 rd mag (according to them). You may disargee with that statement, but then we are faced with the weak point in our argument: we argue that a 30 rd mag is no more dangerous that a 10 rd since a trained person can swap mags out in an instant. Well, that cuts both ways, since if you can swap mags out in an instant, as we argue, why can't you adequately defend yourself with a 10 rd magazine in the gun and one on your belt?

 

We should be careful about not throwing logic out the window when arguing these points. The reality is, IMHO, that a 10 rd magazine is, in almost all feasible self-defense cases, going to be enough to enable a person to defend herself. But, so what. That still doesn't mean we should ban something when there is not one shred of evidence it will do any good AND there are already millions of these things legally purchased and owned already in circulation.