Friday, February 27, 2009

1-gun-per-month Law Stalls in NJ Senate

NJ.Com reports on the failure to pass the Senate vote of a law which would have limited handgun purchases to one per month in New Jersey.
The bill was held by its sponsor, Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham (D-Hudson), after it received 20 votes, one shy of the 21 needed for passage. No Republicans voted for the bill, drawing a rebuke from Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex).

Why do you think the vote was so clearly divided along party lines? I thought there were Democrats who are pro-gun, as well as Republicans who are anti.
Cunningham and other supporters argued the bill would cut down on "straw" buyers who purchase guns for criminals. The bill (S1774/A339) would allow the purchase of up to 13 guns a year, one every 30 days.

New Jersey would be the fourth state to adopt such a limit. Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, had pushed for the bill earlier this month, saying it was "close" to approval.

On the surface, that seems to make perfect sense. I've never doubted that gun flow from the legal to the illegal is a very real and significant part of the problem. But, the antagonists of this bill point out that in New Jersey there are already so many restrictions and requirements to purchase a gun legally, the chances of straw purchases taking place in large numbers are very remote.

I agree with that. So what could be the explanation for all this hoopla?

Beans 71 tells us in his comment.
Everybody knows that straw buyers by their guns in bulk from states like GA and TX where you dont need a permit to buy a gun and you can buy as many as you want with no waiting period, just a quickie background check.

I don't know if Mr. Beans 71 is a cop or a criminal, but he sure seems to know what he's talking about. The goods come right up I-95 and onto the Jersey Turnpike in the trunks of cars. Newark and Camden are adequately supplied, business as usual.

So where does that leave us with New Jersey legislation? I'd say my former home state can be proud to be one of the strictest in the nation for gun control. If Georgia and Texas and all the other gun-friendly states had similar laws, the flow of guns into the criminal world might be diminished to the point where the police could do their jobs.

What do you think? Would the one-gun-a-month law have hurt legal gun owners in New Jersey if it had passed? Is there anything to that anti-gun question: "who needs to buy more than one gun a month anyway?"

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

24 comments:

  1. Mike:

    Check ONE, TWO, THREE!!!!

    Quoting YOU: If Georgia and Texas and all the other gun-friendly states had similar laws, the flow of guns into the criminal world might be diminished to the point where the police could do their jobs.

    If police officers can't deal with armed criminals what in the fucking holy hell are they doing as police officers? Are these the clerical bitches that literally have shat themself when I've shot my elephant oriented handguns in a lane next to them at the range when they were "qualifying"?

    Some of my cop friends have more than one notch as to perps down. If the whiner bitches can't do the job, maybe instead of worrying about firearms availability, they could train or go be a fucking toll booth attendant?

    It's THEIR lives that depend on it, not mine.

    Thomas

    God help me, your stupidity/trolling is still fun to make fun of.

    I guess you'll always be my bitch when I get bored. That's not something you should feel proud of, mike, as it shows a complete and utter lack of logical abilities besides reciting the same dogshit over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So let me get this straight. You're worried about illegal straw buys transferring guns to prohibited persons (A federal Felony, as well as violation of local law) so you somehow think that one more law would fix this???

    More misinformation, Mike. You may be sinister, but you're not stupid. Stop playing us as such.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What part of "...shall not be infringed" are you not getting?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tom, These all seemed like rhetorical questions to me. I agree with you that the cops are often seriously lacking. That's why gun control isn't enough. We need lots of improvement in law enforcement.

    The part of "shall not be infringed" that I don't get is the part that you treat like some kind of sacred text. Sometimes you guys are worse than the bible thumper who quotes the OT to justify his homophobia. That's the part I don't get.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bulk purchases of handguns are reported to the BATFE as they occur.

    To transport them to another state and sell them on the streets is breaking about half-a-dozen federal laws not to mention state and local.

    Why aren't the authorities enforcing the laws already on the books?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike,

    You say
    The part of "shall not be infringed" that I don't get is the part that you treat like some kind of sacred text.

    No more then we treat "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If you pushed to make any church the official church of America; we would fight with as much passion.

    No more then we treat "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;". It isn't about firearms as an issue, it is about the RIGHTS. Shouldn't we treat the words with respect, dignity, and not lightly try to overturn them?

    Because if we treat those words lightly...what is to stop people from treating these words lightly

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    What words in the Constitution and it's amendments should we treat lightly?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "These all seemed like rhetorical questions to me."

    Another lie. That'll give you another 24 hours to come up with a "Convincing" answer.

    Maybe you should start telling the truth, Mike?

    Would you aprove of such dishonesty from your children?

    Would such dishonesty to/from your wife not damage your mairage?

    Yet on this issue dishonesty seems to be fine with you. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd say my former home state can be proud to be one of the strictest in the nation for gun control. If Georgia and Texas and all the other gun-friendly states had similar laws, the flow of guns into the criminal world might be diminished to the point where the police could do their jobs.

    And yet the violent crime rates in NJ are higher than they are in TX and GA. Inconceivable! How could that be, since TX and GA are awash in evil, scary GUNS!

    Hey Mike, since you seem to think "One gun a month" is no big deal and not an infringement on my rights. Let's try this.

    The government passes a "One blog post per month law." Perfectly "reasonable" right? I mean who really NEEDS to write more than one blog post per month?

    Or how about a law that says you can only petition the .gov for redress of greivances once per month. Or maybe we can limit church attendance to once a month to combat the threat of islamic fundamentalism......

    One a month doesn't seem so reasonable when you're honest about it now does it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good Thing New York City has strict gun control laws.

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York police have made a second arrest in the beating death last December of an Ecuadorian immigrant -- an apparent anti-Latino and anti-gay hate crime, an official with Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' office said Friday.
    Jose Sucuzhanay was beaten after leaving a party at a church in New York last December. He died of his injuries.

    Police on Thursday arrested Keith Phoenix, 28, in the Yonkers area, north of New York City.

    Phoenix had been wanted in connection with the beating and death of Jose Sucuzhanay. His arraignment is scheduled for Saturday.Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said Friday.

    Phoenix's arrest follows the Tuesday arrest of Hakim Scott, 25, who has been charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime.

    Police say Jose Sucuzhanay, 31, and his brother Romel Sucuzhanay, 34, had left a party at a church on December 7 and were embracing each other to keep warm in the cold.

    That's when Scott and Phoenix allegedly approached them in a car in Brooklyn's Bushwick section, about a block from the brothers' home.

    Police say Scott and Phoenix shouted anti-gay and anti-Latino vulgarities and attacked the brothers.

    Scott first assaulted Jose Sucuzhanay with a beer bottle before chasing his brother, police said.

    Phoenix then "savagely beat Jose Sucuzhanay on his ribs, shoulders," head and back with an aluminum bat, according to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

    Jose Sucuzhanay died of his injuries hours before his mother arrived in New York from Ecuador. Romel Sucuzhanay escaped with minor scrapes.

    Police were able to identify the two suspects when they determined that they had fled across the Triborough Bridge.



    Now Mike, how did the gun control laws keep this person safe?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another Death Mike is partly responcible for.

    Nice work, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike W., The 1-gun-a-month law, may very well help to ensure that a particular state does not become like Georgia and Texas, a haven for easy access to guns.

    Bob, You're absolutely right. That's another example that supports your side.

    Weer'd, Aren't you the one who's been policing this blog for signs of trolling and such? Aren't you the same guy who has a near-obsession with Mud_Rake, questioning every comment he makes. Then you write crap like that? "Another Death Mike is partly responcible for. Nice work, Mike." What's up with that, Weer'd?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike,

    For months now, you've been accusing Weer'd and I of being responsible for the criminal misdeeds of others.

    I agree with Weer'd. I can make a strong moral, ethical and legal case for people like you having blood on their hands for supporting gun control. Your actions have directly contributed to supporting laws that deny people the right to self defense.

    If, and that is a mighty big IF, Georgia and Texas are big problem with firearms flowing into other states...where is the proof?

    Gun trace data? Which the FBI says isn't useful for that purpose?

    Why isn't the level of violence in Dallas, with it's lax gun laws and plentiful gun stores (Man I like living in Texas) higher then that of Chicago?

    Surely we have more guns here then Chicago?

    Face it Bub, your theory of availability is bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Weer'd, Aren't you the one who's been policing this blog for signs of trolling and such?"

    Yep, I've stopped doing that.

    Now I'm going to point out all the deaths and injuries you're responsible for because of your lies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike, I noticed you basically ignored my comment, and totally misinterpreted the part you did read.

    "One a month doesn't seem so reasonable when you're honest about it now does it?"

    I'd love it if you'd answer this question in the context of my prior comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I'd love it if you'd answer this question in the context of my prior comment."

    Take a number. With a little luck you'll get a piss-poor attempt at an answer, wrought with lies and half-truths about the same time the Slumdog Millionaire DVD hits store shelves....

    We certainly won't get any further comments today, tho he's likely reading this right now.

    To answer questions, and to tell the truth would be counterproductive to his backwards agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Weer'd said, "Take a number. With a little luck you'll get a piss-poor attempt at an answer, wrought with lies and half-truths about the same time the Slumdog Millionaire DVD hits store shelves...."

    You know what you need, Weer'd? You need three kids and a more demanding job. Then you'd give me the benefit of the doubt, at least on this obsession of yours about my responding.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike W., I'm trying again. I really thought I answered you, but I'll give it another go.

    About the crime rates being worse in NJ than they are in TX, I don't know. I don't know that they are worse, first of all, and if they are, I would guess there are many factors involved.

    I hope you don't expect me to take those comparisons you made, the same ones Bob keeps making, seriously. The theories behind gun control, whether you agree with them or not, are intended to reduce violence and bloodshed. Your comparing that to the freedom of speech and freedom of worship, just doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The theories behind gun control, whether you agree with them or not, are intended to reduce violence and bloodshed. Your comparing that to the freedom of speech and freedom of worship, just doesn't work for me.

    you've lived in Europe twenty years, and haven't yet noticed that speech and religion can both kill? criminy, the last four or five hundred years of European history is little but that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The theories behind gun control, whether you agree with them or not, are intended to reduce violence and bloodshed. Your comparing that to the freedom of speech and freedom of worship, just doesn't work for me. Sorry."

    So if someone proposed a "one blog post per month" law with the intended purpose being to reduce the dissemination of potentially violent/extremist ideas you would support it?

    After all, the INTENT would be to "reduce bloodshed" so by your logic it would be a perfectly "reasonable" infringement on free speech rights

    Same with my church attendance example. Intent of the restriction on freedom of religion would be to reduce violence by Islamic fundamentalists.

    They may not "work for you" but they are perfectly valid comparisons.

    Hell, you could certainly make the argument that prohibiting the Neonazi's and KKK from publishing literature and organizing marches would "reduce violence & bloodshed" and yet we allow them to speak and organize, despite the risks and despite how repugnant society finds their message.

    Rights involve risk Mike. It applies to the 1st and yet we defer to those rights anyway. Why do you not apply the very same logic to the 2nd.

    I'm sure I could think of some legitimate "reasonable" reasons for the military to quarter soldiers in civilian homes. Does that in any way diminish the right protected under the 3rd Amendment?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "You know what you need, Weer'd? You need three kids and a more demanding job. Then you'd give me the benefit of the doubt, at least on this obsession of yours about my responding."

    maybe if you stopped spreading lies and being dishonest, you'd find this dialogue going a lot smoother.

    Do your kids know you think it's ok to lie for the sake of wrong agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The theories behind gun control, whether you agree with them or not, are intended to reduce violence and bloodshed."

    Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To prove that the theories behind gun control are to reduce violence, what would I have to do exactly? We're talking about people's intentions here. My own are pure. I'm honestly not interested in "control" or any of the other sinister motives that have been mentioned around here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mike,

    Research the issue. Find where gun control has been implemented in the past and find out what the historical view of why it was implemented.

    Why did Hitler implement gun control?
    Why did Stalin implement gun control?

    Why did the USA implement gun control?

    Do you know the history of gun control in America?

    You might be surprised at the reasons.

    I'll close with a request for some of the others to suggest some reading, possible links to explore.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "To prove that the theories behind gun control are to reduce violence, what would I have to do exactly?"

    I dunno, take one state that passed sweeping gun control laws, and another state that rolled them back, and look at how the quality of life has changed in them.

    You won't want to do it, Mike, it doesn't support your lies, and backward agenda.

    ReplyDelete