Seeing as how Weinberg is at it again with s993 (10 round limit bill), I wanted to come up with a new counterargument that people on her side of the aisle will listen to.  I know that even if it does get to CC's desk it will be vetoed, but it would be nice to bury this bill right now.  

 

My feeling is that when Weinberg, Gill, and Cunningham originally sponsored this legislation, they neglected just how many of their potential voting base would be impacted.  If you bought a pistol sometime in the past three decades, chances are it has a capacity greater than 10 rounds.  A 15 round magazine for a modern handgun is not "high capacity"; it's standard.  My S&W M&P 40, along with my dad's Glocks 19 and 22 immediately come to mind. To us, the question "Why do you need MORE than ten rounds, anyway?" is irrelevant.  More pertinent to the handgun owner is "Why should we unnecessarily reduce the capacity of our legally purchased pistols?" Especially when you consider that they were designed with enough room in the grip for a standard round count.

 

What I plan to do is create a list of NJ legal handguns that were designed to specifically accommodate magazine capacities of greater than 10 but less than 16.  Then for each handgun model, I will request from the NJSP a count of how many are registered in NJ.  I'm not sure if the Freedom of Information Act applies here anymore, but it's not names and addresses I'm after; just brute totals.  When and if I get a response, I will be able to show how many NJ gun owners will be impacted along with an approximation on how much it will cost them to comply with this law that violent criminals will ignore.

 

So I would like from you the following:

1. Applicable handgun model that hasn't been mentioned yet in this topic.
2. Whether or not you think this is a cause worth pursuing and/or your thoughts on getting through to the NJSP.

I think I understand what you want here, but Any mag can be produced new to hold 10 rounds or less. If you mean what guns come with a greater than 10 round capacity standard, then a few come to mind.

 

Glock 17

Glock 19

Glock 20

Glock 21

Glock 31

Glock 32

Glock 23

Glock  22

 

Springfield XDS

FN models etc.

I think I understand what you want here, but Any mag can be produced new to hold 10 rounds or less. If you mean what guns come with a greater than 10 round capacity standard, then a few come to mind.

 

Glock 17

Glock 19

Glock 20

Glock 21

Glock 31

Glock 32

Glock 23

Glock  22

 

Springfield XDS

FN models etc.

 

Sig Sauer P226

Easier to list guns with less than 10. Pocket pistols and 1911's come to mind.

Not to be such a pessimistic person, but you're probably not going to get far with that argument (any argument for that matter, given who you're talking about). They'll say something along the lines of "those guns are military killing machines and shouldn't belong on the streets!"

 

In any case, there's a few guns with *exactly* 15 round magazines...

 

HK USP 9mm

Beretta 92 series

Sig Sauer P226

FN FNX .45

Glock 19

 

are just a few.

I would watch this argument. It could lead to an approved list of firearms for the state of NJ. Sounds familiar huh?

I would watch this argument. It could lead to an approved list of firearms for the state of NJ. Sounds familiar huh?

Are you talking about Commifornia?

I think I understand what you want here, but Any mag can be produced new to hold 10 rounds or less. If you mean what guns come with a greater than 10 round capacity standard, then a few come to mind.

 

Glock 17

Glock 19

Glock 20

Glock 21

Glock 31

Glock 32

Glock 23

Glock  22

 

Springfield XDS

FN models etc.

 

Thanks for the list.  I'm aware that there are 10 round magazines available for purchase for almost any handgun.  But that's just it, we would need to purchase them or pay to have ours modified! Times that by the cost by how many mags to be replaced multiplied by the number of guns that were legally sold in NJ with standard 11,12,13,14,15 round magazines, you'd get a pretty high price to be paid by the law abiding.  Maybe it would get us a little sympathy by the politicians, or at least get them to see our side.

Dont' forget my CZ-75B

I would watch this argument. It could lead to an approved list of firearms for the state of NJ. Sounds familiar huh?

My thoughts exactly!

Do you really think they care the least bit about what their proposal would cost us? I don't even think they would care if it cost the state money. They certainly don't care about hindering our ability to protect ourselves.

 

I think we should be asking them what they hope to accomplish by reducing magazine capacities to ten rounds. When they tell us it's to save lives, we need to remind them that's what they said when they limited us to 15 rounds. So where does it end? We should ask them what statistical evidence they have that it saves any lives.

 

And in the end, none of what we say is going to matter. They're just going to do what they want to do, with little to no resistance from the citizens of this godforsaken state.

Taurus PT 92 series, Sig 226 9mm, S&W M&P 40 cal full size and G19 are the 15 shot STANDARD capacity pistols that I own. 15 shot is NOT a high cap., it is Standard Cap. 

Unless they grandfather existing mags doesn't this represent an illegal taking if we have to dispose of our property or sell it below fair market value.  How is this different than when they take property by eminent domain they have to compensate you for your property.

they will ban your item and allow you a grace period to sell it out of state.. that is the fair compensation.... after the grace period ends if you have not complied you are a criminal by default.. 

 

you cant argue logic with someone that believes limiting magazines leads to safer society.. they have already illustrated that logic is lost on them... 

Deleted

My question is: so now that your going to restrict law abiding citizens to 10rds, what do you plan to do to restrict criminals?

 My feeling is that when Weinberg, Gill, and Cunningham originally sponsored this legislation, they neglected just how many of their potential voting base would be impacted.

???

Just do a search on gunbroker for guns with capacities > 10. You'll have a list of about 2.7 zillion (plus or minus 0.3 zillion).

 

If you want them concerned about their constituents, they need to see people losing elections, or at least experiencing closer elections.

My thoughts exactly!

If they do decide to great an "Approved Gun List", it would happen regardless of what research I perform and publish.  I mean, they already have the means to do so.  And it's only a matter of time for them to garner the support in Trenton.

 

My feeling is that when Weinberg, Gill, and Cunningham originally sponsored this legislation, they neglected just how many of their potential voting base would be impacted.

 

2013 election results:

 

Loretta Weinberg   68.5%    28,321 votes

Paul A. Duggen      31.5%   13,038 votes

 

Sandra Cunningham   73.1%    18,822 votes

Maria Karczewski         26.9%    6,932 votes

 

 

Nia Gill             73.1%     27,132 votes

Joseph Cupoli  26.9%    9,972 votes

 

When the incumbents win with margins like these, do you think they care? Do you think it matters to them if they lose a couple percentage points?

2013 election results:

 

Loretta Weinberg   68.5%    28,321 votes

Paul A. Duggen      31.5%   13,038 votes

 

Sandra Cunningham   73.1%    18,822 votes

Maria Karczewski         26.9%    6,932 votes

 

 

Nia Gill             73.1%     27,132 votes

Joseph Cupoli  26.9%    9,972 votes

 

When the incumbents win with margins like these, do you think they care? Do you think it matters to them if they lose a couple percentage points?

 

So I was dead wrong about the sponsors' voting base, but what about possible bill supporters? Others might represent borderline districts and it would be in their best interest to shy away from voting for BS gun control.  

 

These election results make me wonder.  Do these women support gun control because a) they think it is popular among their constituents [my personal thoughts are that most democratic/independent voters don't care about gun control and they will vote for the incumbent dem regardless] b) they need gun control to gain support from party leaders and peers c) they have a personal aversion to guns in general, especially when in the hands of free civilians d) they want to chase gun-owning voters out of state?

Those margins of victory are very Corleone-ish, aren't they?

So I was dead wrong about the sponsors' voting base, but what about possible bill supporters? Others might represent borderline districts and it would be in their best interest to shy away from voting for BS gun control.  

 

These election results make me wonder.  Do these women support gun control because a) they think it is popular among their constituents [my personal thoughts are that most democratic/independent voters don't care about gun control and they will vote for the incumbent dem regardless] b) they need gun control to gain support from party leaders and peers c) they have a personal aversion to guns in general, especially when in the hands of free civilians d) they want to chase gun-owning voters out of state?

 

Here:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/election_2013_state_senate_results.html

 

Except for a race or two, the results are pretty lopsided either way.

 

 

 

Those margins of victory are very Corleone-ish, aren't they?

District gerrymandering at its finest.

Gov. Christie had a chance to undo that during the last redistricting, but he failed.

 

Except for a race or two, the results are pretty lopsided either way.

 

 

 

District gerrymandering at its finest.

Gov. Christie had a chance to undo that during the last redistricting, but he failed.

That is unbelievable.  You're hard pressed to find a single election within 10% margin of victory.