As some of you know, the SAFE Task Force will begin public meetings next week. For those who cannot be there and speak, please share your thoughts about gun control by sending emails to:

 

[email protected]

 

It would be great to jam up their inbox with "More gun control will not reduce violence. Please review the accepted research and statistics on this matter." kind of short, sweet, to the point emails.

Plan to try and be there, but figured I'd email anyway.

 

Here's what I said, a bit long, but I tend to be verbose.

 

Time and time again, gun control has proven to be ineffective. One only needs to look at Chicago, which has some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the nation to see just how much of a failure they have been. However, this matter is not isolated, and repeated FBI statistics, and empirical evidence (such as the trend of decreasing crime nation-wide, despite more states allowing lawful concealed carry, and the rise of firearm sales) show that these laws are counter productive.

 

To those who argue we are to rely on police to protect us, there are some very important factors to keep in mind. For instance, in Warren v. District of Columbia, the DC court of appeals ruled that police have no duty to protect. A similar ruling was made in 2005 in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

 

Not to mention that NJ has been forced due to budgetary constraints to cut back on police officers, so, even if there was legal precedent that police had a duty to protect, there are fewer of them to do so.

 

To bring the argument further, we can also have the often used argument that if new laws such as magazine restrictions are imposed, the only people who would follow the new laws would be people who are already going to follow the law in the first place. Therefore, we are again infer that the only people who would be affected by new legislation would be those whose possession of certain firearms and magazines are people who aren't a threat to society anyway.

 

Instead of such illogical approaches to curbing violence, we need to seek real solutions, ones which do not affect the millions of legal law abiding NJ gun owners.Tax-paying men and women who are already marginalized and treated as if they are criminals for simply exercising a guaranteed right. We should instead focus on increasing punishment for drug-related offenses, gang-related offenses, violent crime, and avoid allowing criminals to take plea deals for such crimes. This, coupled with increased community out-reach programs, and programs to improve access and funding to mental health facilities, coupled with programs designed to deter at-risk teens from becoming involved with drugs or gangs will be far more effective in reducing violence in our state.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Matthew

Where are these meetings being held?

Taken from NJ2AS facebook page.

 

WHEN & WHERE:

February 5, 2013, 6 p.m. - 8 p.m., Rutgers University-Camden

Rutgers Camden Campus Center

Multi-Purpose Room

326 Penn Street, Camden, NJ 08102

Parking available in Lots 13 & 14 (parking is free until Lots are full)

 

February 6, 2013, 3 p.m. - 5 p.m., Brookdale Community College

Warner Student Life Center

Room: Navesink I, II, III (SLC 216-218), on the upper level of the building

765 Newman Springs Road, Lincroft NJ 07738

Parking available in Lot 7 (parking is free until Lot is full)

 

February 7, 2013, 6 p.m. - 8 p.m., Rutgers University School of Law-Newark

Center for Law and Justice, the Baker Trial Courtroom, Room 125

123 Washington Street, Newark NJ 07102

Parking is available in Lot 510 across the street from the Center for Law and Justice

(parking is free until Lot is full)

Thanks. I'll try to make it out to at least one.

@Kaiser. Are you telling me a court ruled police are not obligated to protect civilians. That's insane... Not to bash any LEO because I've only known one cop that was a scumbag (now unemployed) and I know quite a few. So in the legal systems eyes my tax dollars are to be used to create revenue not protect and serve..?? I miss the walk the beat cops that waved to you said hello and twirled there baton.

@Kaiser. Are you telling me a court ruled police are not obligated to protect civilians. That's insane... Not to bash any LEO because I've only known one cop that was a scumbag (now unemployed) and I know quite a few. So in the legal systems eyes my tax dollars are to be used to create revenue not protect and serve..?? I miss the walk the beat cops that waved to you said hello and twirled there baton.

 

They are not obligated unless they have special provisions to. Whatever that means.

 

This is just what the courts say, not saying that there aren't LEO heroes who wouldn't lay down their life to protect citizens, they are just not required by law to do so.

 

Essentially, if my understanding is correct, police do not serve as "bodyguards" to the populace. They are merely there as a deterrent to crime, and to investigate and attempt to stop crime. I suppose that a cop, in the position where they could die protecting a citizen is not obligated to do so.

 

There are several court cases regarding this, look up the ones I mentioned, you'll probably get more information than I can provide, I just know several courts have come to similar conclusions, and hence, that is why CCW is needed for civilian self-defense.

Here's the email I sent:

 

Dear Task Force,

 

As you move forward, I hope that you will take into consideration proven research and statistics on gun control and not act solely on emotion or some flawed vision of a weapons-free utopia. One needs only to look at nations such as Britain and even to cities within our own country (Chicago, Washington D.C.) to know that banning certain types of weaponry will not work in reducing crime and will instead simply restrict a subset of arms from being used by people that have not the will or capacity to commit murder and assault. I would also have you look at the FBI murder statistics from the past twenty years, which shows that murder rates have been steadily decreasing despite a proliferation of firearms culture and an overall loosening of restrictions on firearms laws throughout the states. Please also consider the constitutionality of the matter. We are a nation that protects the legal ownership of weaponry by the people, and not for sport or hunting purposes; we have arms as a safeguard against the evils of tyranny, so that we might resist should the time come that we are no longer free men and women. I am sure some of you may scoff at the idea, just as the Jews scoffed at the idea of being rallied into death camps by their own government. While something so extreme might not occur in the near future, I would like to remind you that around the same time, the United States government herded Japanese-Americans into concentration camps and essentially stripped them of their rights. We are not hunters, we are not sport shooters, and we are not the cold-blooded murderers that many in the media and government paint us to be. We ARE American citizens. We ARE free men and women. We ARE NOT subjects, and we would like to peacefully keep it that way.