Sen Weinberg is at it AGAIN.

 

S2720 will make firearm FID, and permit info public record.

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S3000/2720_I1.PDF

So what does this prove? How many FIDs and P2Ps are issued in each town? What good does that information do? Sorry Chief your handing out too many permits! It is our right! This is another wingnut without a grasp on reality. Just keep wasting taxpayer time and money trying to show how great she is not!

It's aggregate numbers for a municipality, or NJSP. This one was odd when I read it last night, because what is this for, exactly? There's no PII (name, address, etc.) involved, only total numbers. So you may have a town, like mine where there is a higher rate of FPID/P2P issuance, but a far lower crime rate, than say, Camden or Asbury Park or Paterson (Pascrell) Trenton, or New Brunswick, that probably ( I am guessing) have a lower rate of FPID/P2P issuance. Of course, you will also have cases where there's low FPID/P2P issuance and low crime, like the Rich Old White Liberal havens of Teaneck, (Loretta baby) , Montclair, Princeton, and East Brunswick.

 

So, not surprisingly this makes no sense to me, unless this is some way to tell Liberals thinking of moving someplace that there may be lots of SCARY GUNS and GUN OWNERS somewhere and to STAY AWAY!!! Sounds good to me. I would bet the legislature could get these numbers anyway, or maybe have them anyway, under the guise of 'research' .

it's an aggregate number?

 

who cares?

 

fight the real battles..

I could put my tinfoil hat on and see that it might be the start of a rationing plan, or a means to target FFLs for harassment. Or they are just stupid. But Sen Weinberg is THE ENEMY and hates, personally, firearms owners for owning firearms. So who knows what her sick motivations are on this one. I'll oppose it on GPs, of course.

 

 

it's an aggregate number?

 

who cares?

 

fight the real battles..

I could put my tinfoil hat on and see that it might be the

start of a rationing plan,

or a means to target FFLs for harassment.

Or they are just stupid.

 

I'll pick door number 3. I usually pick ignorance over malicious intent. In my experience, people are more dumb than evil.

 

I save my tin foils for baking chocolate chip cookies.

The reason for this bill is to make sure that the other bill, which prohibits the release of permit information to the public, does not result in prohibiting the release of just the numbers of permits and permit denials. Unless I am missing something that has been cleverly hidden in there, it seems innocuous to me.

The reason for this bill is to make sure that the other bill, which prohibits the release of permit information to the public, does not result in prohibiting the release of just the numbers of permits and permit denials. Unless I am missing something that has been cleverly hidden in there, it seems innocuous to me.

That's what I was kind of thinking too. Especially coupled with S2430, "Study Commission on Violence"

But I've been known to be wrong.

The reason for this bill is to make sure that the other bill, which prohibits the release of permit information to the public, does not result in prohibiting the release of just the numbers of permits and permit denials. Unless I am missing something that has been cleverly hidden in there, it seems innocuous to me.

 

If that's true why not add it as an amendment to the other bill. Why make it a standalone bill if its solely to correct any overreach by the other one?

This seems innocent enough to not cause me any sleepless nights. If it's just numbers by town, I'm sure they can already get that information.

It's aggregate numbers for a municipality, or NJSP. This one was odd when I read it last night, because what is this for, exactly? There's no PII (name, address, etc.) involved, only total numbers. So you may have a town, like mine where there is a higher rate of FPID/P2P issuance, but a far lower crime rate, than say, Camden or Asbury Park or Paterson (Pascrell) Trenton, or New Brunswick, that probably ( I am guessing) have a lower rate of FPID/P2P issuance. Of course, you will also have cases where there's low FPID/P2P issuance and low crime, like the Rich Old White Liberal havens of Teaneck, (Loretta baby) , Montclair, Princeton, and East Brunswick.

 

So, not surprisingly this makes no sense to me, unless this is some way to tell Liberals thinking of moving someplace that there may be lots of SCARY GUNS and GUN OWNERS somewhere and to STAY AWAY!!! Sounds good to me. I would bet the legislature could get these numbers anyway, or maybe have them anyway, under the guise of 'research' .

 

I don't really grok this.

 

Unless it's going to show something that is obvious to us but that Weinberg and most NJ liberals will find shocking -- that the "red" NJ counties (Cape May, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Sussex, Warren)/municipalities have both significantly higher FPID/P2P rates and significantly lower violent crime rates than the "blue" NJ counties/municipalities.

 

Reality isn't consistent with their view of the world, so it's possible. They actually believe Camden is a dangerous place because there are a lot of guns, not because there are a lot of dangerous people.

 

Otherwise, NJ's liberals would try to pass a law requiring a rifle in every home, (à la the Swiss) right along with smoke alarms!

 

 

That's what I was kind of thinking too. Especially coupled with S2430, "Study Commission on Violence"

But I've been known to be wrong.

 

Study Commission on Violence? Which will simply come back and say there's too many guns out there. Even when they know legal gun owners aren't the problem, we'll be the punching bag.

 

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." - Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/government/trenton/91807-nj+press+association+opposes+van+drew039s+firearms+records+exemption+bill