Thank goodness we have the brady bunch to keep us safe from gun violence.

 

We're scored as 72 out of 100.

 

Article > http://njtoday.net/2011/05/04/new-jersey%E2%80%99s-gun-laws-rank-near-top-according-to-brady-campaign/

 

Scorecard > http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/NJ

 

Gotta love how they keep moving the goal posts every year.

I can't wait to be able to move to a Red state .

Interesting point in there about no state pre-emption. Does this mean even if the lawsuit prevails on CCW towns could then restrict it?

 

Also interesting that they chose the red is bad / blue is good color pattern. Purely non-political I'm sure.

Interesting point in there about no state pre-emption. Does this mean even if the lawsuit prevails on CCW towns could then restrict it?

 

NJ does in fact have state pre-emption, the article must be mistaken. In fact, the whole reason the One Gun a Month bill was passed was because Jersey City originally passed it, was taken to court and lost, then started a legislative effort to have it passed at the state level.

 

As far as CCW, lawsuit or not, you likely will never have one in NJ so you should probably put that out of your mind and not waste your time. After millions in legal fees to changed to shall-issue, the state will simply concoct so arduous, expensive, and downright ridiculous of a CCW system that all but the biggest enthusiasts will not have the time/cash/desire to go through what it takes to obtain said permit.

Yeah, I figure as much but a man can dream. But it seems like things are happening in other restrictive states (e.g. CA, IL). I realize the only likely solution is to move elsewhere when I retire. But that's still a way to go.

NJ does in fact have state pre-emption, the article must be mistaken. In fact, the whole reason the One Gun a Month bill was passed was because Jersey City originally passed it, was taken to court and lost, then started a legislative effort to have it passed at the state level.

 

The article is correct, we do not have a pre-emption law, but we have it through the courts. Kind of like the school funding formula; the law says one thing but the activist court says something else.

 

I think it's amusing that they claim California has "effective" gun laws that reduce "gun death", and they rank CA #1, but CA ranks #33 in firearm related deaths per 100,000. That means that there are 17 states with lower firearm related deaths that have a lower Brady ranking. That's unpossible!

Those durn assault clips!

But it seems like things are happening in other restrictive states (e.g. CA, IL).

 

Yeah, but those states have active, mainstream gun owning communities.

 

People in those states rally by the thousands on the state house steps in support of gun rights. In IL there was recently a massive march on the state house in support of CCW, and in CA large numbers of people routinely hold open carry events in public places.

 

Here in NJ, typical gun owner is so intimidated by the system that they won't even openly say they own guns. Heck, I bet if you held a second amendment rally in NJ not even a dozen people would show up.

 

It's just the result of a state permit system that is designed to systematically intimidate people. Every step, from the first police station visit, to the last letter sent to your friends and employer, is designed to scare you out of owning firearms.

 

And at the end of the day, if people don't give a **** about their own rights, why should the state?

Oh yeah, I also like how you get a -2 demerit for no permit CCW. Wonder how they weigh in on the rest of the constitution. Let's give them a red marker for making corrections...