NJ Gun Control Legislation; Coming Soon to a State Near You?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
How many more do you want to see killed with these dam guns being used. It will never stop if no control will be used with this by the government.
 
MU, you are right. The dreaded math bug bit me in the butt. I guess after more than 30 years in Europe and the Middle East, I still am metrically challenged. :)

marv, every mass shooting we have had recently was already illegal by existing laws. How many more laws do you want to pass for criminals to ignore? That's why we call them criminals.

All these new laws accomplish is to criminalize the behavior of formerly law abiding citizens.

Compare the death rates of Chicago (lots of restrictive gun laws) to Vermont (extremely liberal CC laws). Any non-felon Vermont citizen over 21 can carry concealed. He (or she) doesn't need a training class or any kind of permit. Lots of blood in the streets of Vermont, isn't there?
 
jsc, there are very few folks in the U.S. that would know off the top of their heads the inch diameter of a 6.5 mm rifle, and they are all "rifle loonies." (Guilty.) 6.5 mm rifles haven't caught on in the U.S. except in benchrest shooting which is a definite niche. Most metric-caliber cartridges designed in the U.S. are also denoted in inches, such as the .243 Winchester and .40 Smith & Wesson. The one exception is 7 mm rifles. Why? I have no clue.
 
Aside from the 2nd Amendment clearly stating the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", I would actually support, at the State level, requiring anyone wanting to own firearms or obtain a concealed carry permit to have been trained by a certified instructor.

Of course, this would have to come with those States repealing any assault weapons bans and removing any and all roadblocks towards concealed carry. Think of it this way, if a person was trained and qualified, then they have proven they know how to responsibly own and handle firearms, and that certification should come with the freedom to own and carry any gun not prohibited by Federal law.

Living in New Jersey, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, I would support this change to State law but only with the caveat that those who got the certification were able to carry concealed and own any firearm not prohibited by Federal law.

Imagine the cottage industry that would open up for Certified Pistol Instructors. Imagine the NRA actually being able to live out it's charter of promoting firearms training, education, and marksmanship.

I know it will never happen but don't hold it against me for daydreaming...
 
I consider myself a native Vermonter our system of gun laws would only work in Vermont.

There are two factors for VT's low gun homicide rate the first is the thin population, there is plenty of room to stretch out or get away from annoying neighbors. Secondly is gun culture, guns are used for hunting not for revenge or as a status symbol.

VT gun laws can not work in Philly or even large towns, if anyone has ever been to Burlington its laughably small and our largest city. You cant have the same sort of community or gun culture in other places... A gun in a city is used for defense, not anything else. So it makes perfect sense to say "You don't need a .50 cal weapon to defend yourself", or a 30 round magazine....

You would also be hard pressed to find wackos in VT that feel the need to own heavy weapons. For example my GF's father owns several guns 2 shotguns and a few rifles... Not a tricked out AR-15 or a .50 cal rifle, very commons sense weapons. Ive seen a dude pull a gun out at a bar, Just a few months ago some dude was taking pot shots at the police from his house (Hes a local they talked him down).

Besides when you get pissed off enough to start going on a killing spree spending 15 minutes scraping ice off your car, then another 15 while it thaws enough to see out the windows then a half an hour drive to the nearest populated area really gives you time to evaluate what the hell you are doing.
 
^ Reminds me of a recent speech from Senator Leahy.

If anything really, it just goes to show that national gun laws are not a real solution to a particular State's causes of violence.

Don't be too smug though. While Vermont's (lack of) gun laws may not work in New York, you can bet your Grandpappy's shotguns that New York's or California's gun laws will work just fine in Vermont.

BTW - The typical bolt action .50BMG rifle starts selling at $6000. The semi-auto version starts selling at $12,000. And both weigh in at about 30 lbs unloaded. Not exactly a firearm the average gun owner in any State would have; let alone the notion of it being used for self-defense. The .50BMG rifle appeals to a very niche market, mostly collectors and competitive sport shooters.


 
MU_Eng., I am not THAT much of a gun nut, but I could have spent 5 secs with WinCalc verifying. A few companies are making AR15 pattern rifles in 6.5 mm.

wanamingo, I realize that I (deliberately) used an unfair comparison with Chicago and the State of Vermont. But "death rates" wasn't part of it. Rates will equalize for population density.
 
I actually own a couple of "assault rifles". And I can say for 100% certain, that my 2 "assault rifles" don't fire faster or kill faster than a regular semi-auto hunting rifle or semi auto pistol. Democrats think these rifles are fully automatic. Even Michelle Obama thinks fully automatic rifles are legal as she so ignorantly said in her recent interview. Obama and his people are going after "assault rifles" because they LOOK dangerous, and for no other reason. I can show you 2 of the exact same rifle. One with a pistol grip and one with a regular stock. And the one with the pistol grip would be banned in New York.

And do we really want the government telling us how many bullets we can have in a clip? Do we want them to tell us how many bullets we need to protect ourselves from 2-5 robber's or maybe more? Anyone who is for this is cleary thinking with thier emotions and not their brain. The first ban did nothing and this one won't either. This new bill they want passed will ban a lot of pistols, and even shot guns. If they have 1 military accessory on them then they are banned. Meaning a pistol with an accessory rail will be banned because it has an accessory rail. How much sense does that make?

We'll never be able to stop the crazies. If it wasn't a gun it would have been a bomb. If it wasn't a bomb it would have been a knife. Why compare different counties deaths per year by guns they should be just comparing their homicide rates. Because countries with low gun deaths simply create death more creative ways. Do we really want to see murders revert back to using a hatchet? Say America has 100 homicides per year. 70 of them by guns. But say China has 100 homicides per year, 30 by guns. Does China really think they are stopping homicides by banning guns? Or are people simply finding other more creative ways to kill? This is why you can't compare this way. Does the left care about deaths or ONLY deaths by guns?
 

eric, that is one reason one of my favorite comparisons is between a Ruger Mini-14 and any AR-15 in 5.56 mm.


Only death by guns, and then only if it is white on black. Liberal bastions such as Chicago are excluded.
 
Even if someones not white (George Zimmerman) they try to make him so.

When you mix the zealotry of attempted racism by racists, add a death, using a gun, you have the ABCs of a good story, or NBCs, or CBS or CNN.
Oh, and throw in the supposed neutrality of the press, since they also do all those times people use guns to defend themselves and camp on the various stories for months at a time, oh wait.......
Oh yes, I am calling the majority of the press racist, as they make a big deal of the color of someones skin, yet they supposedly (theres that word agaian) say theres no difference
 
The entire notion of a federal gun ban is absurd as the 2nd Amendment is very clear that the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT infringed! A discussion of a Federal ban on any and all firearms should not be even taking place. The only government entities that have the power to regulate the people's right to keep and bear arms are the State's. This newest gun ban proposal blatantly ignores the plain text written in the Constitution and usurps State's rights.

The bill proposed by Feinstein is more about banning and confiscating weapons than it is about preventing the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms. The 2013 proposal is the 1994 AWB on steroids after snorting cocaine and shooting heroin.

Here's a link to the Bill summary directly from Feinstein's website; Summary of Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Briefly...
The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
■All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
■All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
■All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
■All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
■All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
■157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
Click to expand...
The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:
■Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.
■This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.
■Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.
■Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
■Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.
■Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon
Click to expand...

Here's the list of weapons to be banned, by name as specifically mentioned in the bill;
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Lastly, here is a list of the current Senate Co-Sponsors. If your Senators are on the list, contact them to express your opinion of their support for this unconstitutional act to disarm the american people.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.)
Senator Mo Cowan (D-Mass.)
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Senator John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
 



Yeah, I actually have owed both. I've owned an AR15 and I own a Mini14. I also own an SKS but that's not the point. I took my Mini14 and put a collapsible stock on it with a pistol grip. Is it now an "assault rifle"? Or is it still a semi automatic hunting rifle? How can you define what a rifle is by the types of accessories that are part of said rifle? This is how stupid the lefts argument is on this issue. Instead of focusing on the heart of the issue, all they focus on is appearance. And I'm sad to say that not too many people can argue this point correctly even on Fox News. Democrats simply believe that guns are bad and should not be part of our culture. I love watching or listening to a democrat argue why it's better to NOT have a gun when someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you. The democrats rather be sitting freaking ducks than actually be able to protect themselves. How crazy is that crap. That just goes to show you that their "argument" doesn't hold water what-so-ever. No matter how you break it down, I'd much rather be protected by a pistol than to be nervously searching for some sharp sizzors.
 
Let's make it simple:


as·sault
[ ə sáwlt ]
1.physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack
2.threat of bodily harm: an unlawful threat or attempt to do violence or harm to somebody else

Anything can assault.

I don't call mine an assault rifle. I call mine a defense rifle. 😀
 
What the hell is the difference it still kills.
 
People in Alaska , some Im sure, hate them as well, but truly need them.
Where I live, they sometimes are needed as well.
Point is, whats good for the guy in the city, where the only animals are people, then it comes down to defending oneself against another person, where in other areas, its a an8imal.
No one law should remove guns, and many different types of guns for such a diverse country such as ours, ever.
Its why the more the federal government tries to govern from DC, the mo9re it truly fails to govern, when the local and states rights are usurped.
You don't need forestry controls in the desert, taking guns away from some people will end up killing them.
Even those that hate them, but have to carry, and possibly use them
 
I call it the unselected statistic.
In this case, it goes for getting rid of guns.
Like the seat belt law, people die wearing seatbelts, just like shootings, the difference is, the stats used for seatbelts include those who drown strapped into their cars, as wearing seatbelts, whereas people defending themselves to the death are added onto the death by guns list.

Now heres a place that actually uses guns, I mean really uses them

Already gun advocates have successfully fought off proposed legislative bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in Minnesota.

Now, they're working against the last big gun-control proposal -- universal background checks -- pushing an alternate gun bill that doesn't expand such reviews.

A majority of the state House has signed on in support, as has the National Rifle Association and the Minnesota Sheriffs Association.
http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/ci_22728818/modest-gun-law-revisions-be-revealed-by-minnesota

Now, Im not going to go all apologetic on people, and explain for some reason people want their guns here, or people have good uses for guns here, as some have, then denies common sense, as here, my link shows just what common sense is.
 


The terminology is being used incorrectly to further an agenda. And no, a typical .223 caliber "assault weapon" would be unlikely to kill a grizzly bear as it is far too small and weak of a round. You'd do better to hold the rifle over your head and wave it around to try to scare the bear off than shoot the bear with such a puny round. Hey, and if the bear sees it's a scary "assault weapon," he'll run away even faster than if you were holding something less scary like a bolt-action .375 H&H, a lever-action .45-70, or a 12-gauge slug shotgun.
 
What the hell kind of world do we live in where now we need guns to defend ourselves? Why do I ask myself this society is getting more violent and more inhumane each day.
 
Its sad.
I can understand a man surprising a griz, and then having to shoot the bear.

The way I see it is, if the good doesn't stand up against the bad, the bad rules, as has often ben the case in lower neighborhoods, where people that are different don't want the "man" around, and defend/protect criminals which are more "like" them.
This prevents a good relation from happening between the police and those in the neighborhoods, where weve gotten to the point, those neighborhoods leaders actually are calling the "man/cops" out, so they can remain popular.
Certain groups back these leaders, and follow suit, as long as it doesn't cross into the "others" jurisdictions, it keeps them elected, has some neighborhood leaders, but doesn't do a damn thing for the criminal who maybe started off with petty theft, but having gotten away from the reasons Ive stated, besides the gap, where the cops cant do their jobs, and no one will talk to them, it all escalates, and soon, everybobies got one, a shotgun or preferably a handgun.
So, certain segments occasionally clash with other segments, sometimes thru necessity, sometimes thru happenstance, and sometimes, the bad guy just wants what you have.
These people want ways to protect themselves, cant understand how its gotten this far, as they have stood up in their neighborhoods, and usually never see such things, or hear guns being fired etc.
To say to the law abiders youll have to lay down your gun, that's only carrying this whole thing further away from the direction we ALL need to be going in, and it is a travesty and a shame its happening today, as our leaders look in the wrong places, searching for the wrong things from the wrong people
 


Wow! I had to read that article a couple of times of the past two days to make sure I understood it correctly. From what I can tell, she did nothing wrong or illegal and is truly the victim of a pseudo-public official on a power trip who didn't appreciate someone who knew her rights and that the law was on her side. I hope to the Almighty that this douche-bag get's his butt handed to him and find liable for slander. unfortunately, I do not think that this family will get their guns back without a lengthy and arduous court battle. I HOPE that Gloucester County still has some judges that respect the law and realize the entirety of the case.

Sadly, this is not the first instance I know in NJ where a phone call resulted in a law abiding citizen having their firearms confiscated.

Thanks for the link. I will be sure to scan the local papers to see if there are any follow up stories.

 
Someone should lose their job for impersonating an officer.
They should all quit acting like little tin gods, listen to their boss, the tax payer, and find a solution, like do this when the husbands home, you know, both parties go out of their way and set a date that's mutually acceptable.
My question is, or rather common sense thoughts are, she should have the right to have it re evaluated to its real market worth, and not go specifically with the states questimates.
If she isn't allowed this, this is simply taxation without representation to its highest degree, which the people that work for us should take into consideration what public attitudes this creates, as their true bosses wont like it much come election time.
The rest will have to come down to witnesses and facts, in the meantime, the state holds the guns, and if something should happen to them , their family,during this time, and if the sleaze bags dare to even say it was merely unfortunate, maybe so was Conneticut?
No, that attitude and ideal doesn't fit in either scenario.
They should give the guns back and resolve this issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom