Usually I would be happy to hear the governor vetoed a gun bill, but I am a little confused about this one.  The bill, A-4182, would have toughened current law that disqualifies a person who has been convicted of certain serious crimes from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling firearms.

That bill had passed 37-0 in the Senate and 68-0, with eight abstaining, in the Assembly.

The vetoed bill provides that a person who has been convicted of carjacking, gang criminality, racketeering, or terroristic threats, and who purchases, owns, possesses or controls a firearm is also guilty of a crime of the second degree.

 

What that is not obvious is in the bill that would have caused him to veto this?  I would think any person would want folks that have done these things not to have guns.  What am I missing, there must be some poison pill in it that the press is not telling about.

 

http://patch.com/new-jersey/morristown/christie-vetoes-gun-bill-banning-criminals-convicted-carjacking-gangs-more-0?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=politics%20%26%20government&utm_campaign=alert

I just read the bill.  If I'm understanding it correctly, it's currently the law that If you've ever been convicted of:

 

aggravated assault, arson, burglary, escape, extortion, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, bias intimidation, endangering the welfare of a child, stalking, or a crime involving domestic violence,

 

and are later found in possession of a firearm, the mandatory sentence is 5 years for that possession.

 

This bill adds carjacking, gang criminality, racketeering, and terroristic threats to that list.

 

I guess he signed it because it makes gun laws tougher and he's really under fire for being too anti gun.  Even though it's a good bill, somebody will spin it to prove that's he's still passing anti-gun laws.

My guess is that these are all felonies...and the law already covers convicted felons.  No need for more laws.  Why doesn't the legislature draft some bills to keep convicted criminals in jail instead of letting them out early all the time?

Usually I would be happy to hear the governor vetoed a gun bill, but I am a little confused about this one. The bill, A-4182, would have toughened current law that disqualifies a person who has been convicted of certain serious crimes from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling firearms.

That bill had passed 37-0 in the Senate and 68-0, with eight abstaining, in the Assembly.

The vetoed bill provides that a person who has been convicted of carjacking, gang criminality, racketeering, or terroristic threats, and who purchases, owns, possesses or controls a firearm is also guilty of a crime of the second degree.

What that is not obvious is in the bill that would have caused him to veto this? I would think any person would want folks that have done these things not to have guns. What am I missing, there must be some poison pill in it that the press is not telling about.

http://patch.com/new-jersey/morristown/christie-vetoes-gun-bill-banning-criminals-convicted-carjacking-gangs-more-0?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=politics%20%26%20government&utm_campaign=alert

First, we don't need anymore gun laws.

 

Second, did you read the bill? No.

 

Finally, anybody convicted of those crimes would already be banned from firearm onwership for life under both state and federal laws.

 

Our problem is TOO MANY people banned from owning firearms, not hard, convicted criminals obeying their gun bans.

The existing System demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to apply laws with common sense and fairness. People who write these laws understand it more than anyone else. They write laws that sound all common sense, no brainer, get them passed only to turn into nightmare. 

 

Lets look at the definition of Terrorist Threat.

 

".....or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or ...."

 

How on god's earth can anyone trust the System not take take advantage of such loose and overreaching laws at opportune time ? And they want to pass more laws to it make it "more tough" ? Seriously ? 

 

If you are thinking we have checks and balances, think again.  Everytime a law, such as the one which restricts or strips constitutional rights,  is proposed, it MUST be accompanied by a "Justifiable Need" (pun intended).  

 

Question to ask here is, when is the last time a real Terrorist got away just because the proposed law was missing from the books ?

 

BTW, Dems were secretly wishing Mr. Christie would veto this. How else can they make mountain out of a molehill ?

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/12-3.html

Shit bill, shit legislature.

Got it. That public inconvenience is a cute one, my daughter got cited for that in college in PA for, Wait for it .....Streaking.

Not that everyone is wrong, especially about the "terroristic threats". But here is what Christie's office said:

 

Nothing on the specific rationale for this bill, other than this with respect to the pocket veto period in general: Having the legislature pass more than 100 bills in such a hasty and scrambled way, praying for them to be rubber stamped, is never a good formula for effectively doing public business," said Christie spokeswoman Joelle Farrell.

My thoughts and concern is about the terroristic threats part of the bill. I would take that if you threaten someone to "kick their motherf*cker ass" that that would be grounds for you to be denied or remove your firearm. I am thinking along the lines when someone, innocent or not gets arrested by LE. They often times threaten to kick the cops ass, etc. and get the "making a terroristic threat" charge.

 

Now there are times when people, we all have, have threatened to kick someone's ass out of anger, but never actually went through with it.

 

I am wrong in interpreting it this way?

I don't know about you, but I cause serious public inconvenience every time I eat burritos before boarding a NJ Transit train.

How about just no more anti-gun laws?

Got it. That public inconvenience is a cute one, my daughter got cited for that in college in PA for, Wait for it .....Streaking.

Pics or it did not happen.

Not enough room in NJ prisons.........................

How about just no more anti-gun laws?

Agree, but let's expand on this a bit. Do we need any more laws at this point? Is there anything that isn't already regulated by state or federal law? I certainly can't think of anything.

 

This may be a pipe dream, but legislators should be looking to reevaluate, simplify, repeal, and optimize current laws. It's never going to happen, but it should be noted that we no longer participate in a representative democratic repuiblic government. We are now just an ochlocracy.

^{The part your missing Mr Oden is the one where your daughter or son cannot hunt with you because  Ishmall Oden is on a watch list and cannot even hold a gun.}

^{I know that  your 6 year old child is not a terrorist but....................................................}

Lets look at the definition of Terrorist Threat.

 

".....or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or ...."

 

So when are the George Washington Bridge terrorists going on trail?