Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Chris Christie Just Vetoed A Bill That Would Have Forced Domestic Abusers To Surrender Their Guns

<span class='image-component__caption' itemprop="caption">New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed a bill that would have required convicted domestic abusers to surrender their guns. He advocates arming domestic violence victims.</span>

Huffington Post

Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill on Monday that would have strengthened mechanisms for removing guns from domestic violence abusers.
Under existing state law, individuals convicted of domestic violence or subject to a final restraining order are barred from possessing or buying guns. However, the law doesn’t require that offenders actually surrender the firearms they own, which makes the ban challenging to enforce. The proposed legislation would have required those prohibited from owning guns to turn them over to law enforcement or sell them within a short period of time.
State Assemblywoman Gabriela M. Mosquera, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, told The Huffington Post she was at a loss for words about Christie’s veto.
"The purpose of this bill is very clear, it just gives the courts the mechanism to ensure that those who are convicted of domestic violence, if they have firearms in the home, that those are taken away," she said. "This bill is about protecting the victims of domestic violence. It’s common sense, and I’m very disappointed that the governor didn’t see it the same way."


  1. "Christie issued a conditional veto, returning the bill to the state legislature with his suggestions. The governor's proposed changes include increasing penalties for domestic violence offenders and simplifying the process of arming domestic violence victims.
    "I urge the Legislature to join with me in a bipartisan manner to broaden this bill’s approach to reducing domestic violence while simultaneously empowering victims to protect themselves through lawful means," Christie said in a statement. "Together, we can enact a more comprehensive approach and reduce the harm that domestic violence inflicts on victims, families, and our society."

    So the Governor wants a few things added to the bill before he'll sign it into law. So the question is, will there be any compromise. It's entirely within their power to attain their goals since I see no mention of him wanting any of the original bill removed.
    New Jersey is such a politically odd state, that I've given up trying to make sense of it. it just serves as a consistent example of what damage a well entrenched political machine can burden its citizens with.
    I'm sure it doesn't help that the Governor is running for President and is trying to outdo his opponents, something that is happening in both parties.

    1. Thank you as usual for your above and beyond research that so often illuminates the complete story. Something we don't always see before we venture an opinion.

      But on closer inspection, it doesn't hold a lot of water for me. Stiffer penalties? What are the penalties right now? The problem is usually that the couples are not willing to give up or live apart despite all of their problems with their relationship. Making it easier for the female to kill the husband doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. More jail time for abusive husbands? Maybe. But I think that for the most part they don't receive any appreciable jail time or sentencing. They probably just get out of jail after being arrested and return back to their homes with certain conditions and oversight.

      Maybe more funding of marriage counseling. More women's shelters. Making it easier for a woman with little or no money to find a way out. To make her way to a safe place.

      Like anything else in life, violence is usually not the best response.

    2. "Thank you as usual for your above and beyond research that so often illuminates the complete story."

      I'm afraid I can't take credit for going above and beyond in this case FJ. You can see in my comment, I didn't provide a link for the source of the article I used. That's because it came from the article Mike provided. So you not seeing the additional information I provided to provide a better picture of the situation was Mike's decision. I just moved it from page 2 to page one so to speak.
      I think you should read up a bit on the process of civil protection orders and what happens when their violated. It's quite a bit more involved than what you believe, depending on the state of course.
      New Jersey's penalty for violating a protection order is a contempt charge and runs up to an 18 month sentence with a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail for a second offense.

    3. "Something we don't always see before we venture an opinion."

      I resemble that remark, FJ.

  2. He's still a "gun control" fanatic, this righteous veto notwithstanding. I wonder if he thinks he's fooling gun rights advocates with this transparent snollygostering.

  3. That poor fucking bastard. No republican stands any chance of winning the presidency, let alone him. He didn't have his ducks in a row. Who could possibly have predicted the fickle intricacies of this historically retarded republican primary? He's certainly as cute and good-looking as any of the other candidates. Never mind his seventeen-pound shadow. It just was never meant to be him.

    As governor, he could have done something meaningful with his legacy. He could have always been remembered as one of the good ones.

    I don't think Bruce Springsteen will be playing any engagements for Crusty the Clown in our lifetimes.