In New Jersey it'll now become law, assuming Gov. Corzine signs, which everyone expects him to do. The Gun Guys describe it like this.
Our Freedom States Alliance affiliate, Ceasefire NJ, and one of the most remarkable gun violence prevention advocates, Bryan Miller, is celebrating a huge victory tonight in passing a one handgun per month law. The state senate vote was 21-15, and now goes to Gov. Corzine for his signature to become law.
What's your opinion? Isn't this one of the most reasonable laws, one which should produce the desired benefits without too much inconvenience to gun owners?
In the video to which the Gun Guys provided a link, Bryan Miller talks about the tragic death of his brother which he explains was his motivation for getting involved in gun control. Do you think anti-gun folks who have suffered a personal loss due to gun violence are somehow less qualified to hold their opinions? I've heard this suggested about Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. Do you think there's some decrease in functionality of the reasoning part of the brain in these folks? Might not the tragedy give increased focus and clarity?
What's your opinion.
"Why do the pro-gun folks object to this one?"
ReplyDeleteBecause an infringement is an infringement.
"Isn't this one of the most reasonable laws, one which should produce the desired benefits without too much inconvenience to gun owners?"
Suppose I lived in NJ and decided that I would like to buy a pair of matching serial number SASS guns to use in the sport of Cowboy Action Shooting. Now I could not. This law is an inconvenience and is unnecessary.
"Do you think anti-gun folks who have suffered a personal loss due to gun violence are somehow less qualified to hold their opinions?"
Not at all. Their liberal minds were probably clouded with unicorn farts long before they suffered their tragedy. My brother-in-law lost a brother due to a gun tragedy and he didn't become a whining liberal nut case.
"I've heard this suggested about Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. Do you think there's some decrease in functionality of the reasoning part of the brain in these folks?"
With that commie witch? Heck yea she is missing the reasoning part of her brain. And yes, I realize I resorted to name calling and I always will for that Bolshevik bimbo.
Bryan Miller also thinks a woman being raped in a restroom shouldn't be allowed a firearm to defend herself.
ReplyDelete"One Gun a Month" has NO effect on criminals since there's already a licensing system in place that has to be approved by the authorities.
Do it again, only harder.
Think about the precedent this sets.
ReplyDeleteThe government can now limit how often you may excersize your Rights.
What would you say about a one post per month law for bloggers?
One newspaper per month?
One episode of free speech per month?
Protection against warrantless search and seizure once per month?
Sound good?
Why not?
Now that the precedent has been set, how long will it be until we see one gun every 2 months? 6 months? 12 months?
How about Americans can vote only 10 times in their lifetime?
Blacks can have equal Rights once per month?
You really need to step back from the gun issue and see the big picture.
Besides, every multiple gun purchase(more than one) is already reported to the BATFE as a matter of federal law.
The sad thing about this is that NJ's laws are so ridiculous already that for all practical purposes you cannot buy more than 1gun a month anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou need a purchase permit in NJ each time you wish to buy, and they do not issue them in a timely manner.
Would you object to the gov. telling you that you're limited to one blog post per month mike? After all, it's just a "reasonable restriction" to combat the "information flow" problem.
Kave,
ReplyDeleteNot only that but each and every handgun purchase has to be approved by the police already.
Take a look at the debate Miller had w/ a soccer mom:
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/11/mentality-of-hoplophobes.html
To get this passed, Corzine had to burn up a lot of political capital which may backfire on him. Miller's been ranting and raving about this for months w/o making any headway so his influence had little to do w/ it.
Even setting aside the more fundamental issue of the infringement on a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual (something I'm rarely willing to do, even for a moment--I must be getting soft in my old age), does anyone really believe that this will have any effect on crime and/or violence? Virginia has such a law, and is routinely condemned as being a source state for guns trafficked into New York and other freedom-challenged states. New Jersey, as others pointed out, is already a state in which almost no one legally buys two handguns in a month.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing but a symbolic victory over liberty. Enjoy it.
The amazing thing is that pro-gunners were able to put up a good fight against this. NJ is rabidly anti-gun and only ~15% of the population are gun owners. Most gun owners have left NJ for free states that more resemble America.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like this'll do a damn thing to solve NJ's crime problem. You already can't carry, can't have a gun in your car etc. etc.
So now the brace of antique dueling pistols I was saving for will be illegal to purchase. What part of "Shall NOT Be Infringed" do these idiots not understand.
ReplyDeleteI dunno. How many blog posts per month -- after having them run through a government agency for a background check and approval -- do you think you should be permitted?
ReplyDelete"Under current law, no one may purchase, sell or transfer a firearm to another person unless he or she has the necessary permit or authorization. Each gun permit enables a buyer to purchase one gun, and subsequent permits are needed for additional guns. Authorized gun sellers are required to do FBI background checks on prospective purchasers before transferring a firearm."
ReplyDeleteI guess you wanted to omit this detail.
kaveman, Does that mean that in NJ there is no such thing as the "loophole?" In order for a person to get the necessary license to purchase a firearm they must pass the background check, which covers also private sales. Is that how it works? Would that mean that even before the new one-gun-a-month law, no one could get permission to buy more than that anyway? Is that what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteDon't count your brace of pistols out yet. I would have to look up the law again but I believe there is a caveat (loophole anyone?) that the definition of firearms does not include guns that were made more than 100 years ago in their original condition as long as they don't fire modern ammunition (cartridge). Someone can correct me on this if you know the law better or have the time to look it up.
What that means is you can buy enough dueling pistols to supply the entire Mexican drug cartels and no one at BATFE will bat an eye, because as far as they are concerned, they are not firearms, just conglomerations of wood and metal that fling metal projectiles at subsonic speeds. You could even have the US postal service deliver them right to your door without a signature! Aren't America's gun laws great?
Oh course now, Mikeb will probably want to advocate the restriction of all black powder rifles and muskets.
Hey MikeB, you're quick. How many people also stated that to purchase a handgun in NJ, YOU NEED POLICE PERMISSION for EACH and EVERY one you buy.
ReplyDeleteNo 'loophole'. No legal transfers without it.
And still NJ cities have some of the highest crime rates in the nation.
I'm sure another 'gun control' law will stop that.
Of course you could argue that the guns in New Jersey are coming from Pennsylvania or another nearby state like Virginia that has "lax" gun laws. Except that Virginia already has "one gun a month" and that doesn't stop them for being blamed for all the guns in DC. It I remember correctly, even the VT shooter abided by the one gun a month law.
ReplyDelete"Does that mean that in NJ there is no such thing as the "loophole?" In order for a person to get the necessary license to purchase a firearm they must pass the background check, which covers also private sales. Is that how it works? Would that mean that even before the new one-gun-a-month law, no one could get permission to buy more than that anyway? Is that what you're saying?"
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Peoples Republic of New Jersey allows private transfers. All transfers have to be approved by the party apparatchik.
As Reputo pointed out, Virginia may be getting wrongfully blamed as the source of guns for the North East. I think they're all coming from Ex-Caliber Guns in Phoenix.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, what you guys often say proves gun laws don't work, is exactly the opposite. Tough gun laws in NJ mean the crime guns in Camden and Newark are coming from somewhere else where the laws are more lax. If every state had the same restrictions as NJ, this would stop. The gun availability would go way down, gun violence would necessarily follow and everybody would live happily ever after. Even you gun guys would adjust to the restrictions without having to change your lifestyle all that much.
So if we just institute a licensing process for blogging, and only allow one blog per month, then the incident of "hate" blogging will go down and the people will be less likely to act on that hate speech and we will have less crime. And with very little change in lifestyle for all of us.
ReplyDelete"Even you gun guys would adjust to the restrictions without having to change your lifestyle all that much."
ReplyDeleteReally? because right now we're leaving statist shitholes like NJ for areas of the country that are actually free. If their ineffective laws applied nationwide where would we go?
"Tough gun laws in NJ mean the crime guns in Camden and Newark are coming from somewhere else where the laws are more lax. "
ReplyDeleteProof? And try something other than the Brady Campaign please.
"If every state had the same restrictions as NJ, this would stop. "
Proof?
"Even you gun guys would adjust to the restrictions without having to change your lifestyle all that much."
And you know this how?
Basically what you're claiming is that people in places like Camden , Chicago, etc. are unable to control themselves since the levels of violence are not equal in areas where legal firearm ownership is more prevalent.
Everyone, get some common sense. All that is being advocated here is that we eliminate all knowledge of firearm technology, destroy all remaining firearms, and don't allow anyone to tinker with chemicals and tubes again. By the end of the week there will be 0 gun homicides, 0 gun suicides, and 0 gun accidents. That the overall homicide, suicide, and accident rates will not decrease (and may increase) is just an inconvenience we have to deal with in order to be safe from gun violence. Next Sunday we can work on world peace, that should only take a couple of days.
ReplyDeleteThirdpower, Some things require just a smidgen of common sense. If the gun laws in NJ are as "unfair" as you guys say, isn't in natural to assume the crime guns come for elsewhere? I won't spend any time digging for "proof" of something like that which you probably already agree with but won't admit.
ReplyDeleteReputo, Taken to the extreme it is indeed absurd. But, a significant diminishment in gun availability would make for a significant improvement in gun violence. That's what I'm talking about.
The gun laws in NJ, as described by you guys yourselves, are in themselves proof that gun control works. They simply need to be applied in every state. And in order to do that, as Bryan Miller explained, it takes education (he called it advocacy). When the people are informed about guns and gun violence, they do what they did in NJ, they ask their representatives to write stricter laws.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteBut you are advocating that we take it to the extreme. After the institute NJ gun laws across the nation and gun violence hasn't decreased, what next...start confiscating the guns? So when no law abiding person has guns and there is still gun violence, what next...
So why is there rampant gun violence in Jamaica. It's an island nation that is illegal for civilian ownership of guns. They have banned guns, and yet the criminals still get them. If anyplace that banned guns should be safe, it would be a small island nation. But it isn't.
Gun laws do not reduce gun violence. No peer reviewed study has ever shown that. On the contrary, every single study has shown that lax gun laws (i.e. more legal guns and gun owners) either decreases gun crimes or has no effect.
"The gun laws in NJ, as described by you guys yourselves, are in themselves proof that gun control works."
ReplyDeleteReally? Must explain why Camden & Newark are crime free utopias!