Comments

THE NEW JERSEY MAGAZINE BAN — 39 Comments

  1. as with most of these things, it will only make the logic-challenged liberals FEEL safer, even though criminals will ignore the law. IIRC, it was the death of a NJ State Trooper, Phillip Lamonaco, in 1981 that caused the NJSP to move to high capacity 9mm pistols. As you say, if it’s good enough for the cops, it should be good enough for the rest of the good people in the state. I think NJ is trying to wrest the title of most messed up state from CA! How many otherwise law abiding citizens will have their lives ruined for what is truly no good reason? I know I’ll be avoiding that state as much as possible when travelling to NH to see relatives!

    • Tom – As I pointed out in my comments in the previous ‘Bump Stock’ blog, the leftist liberals ARE NOT ‘logic-challenged’. Quite the contrary. Their actions are logic and clever. They are also deceptive and manipulative.

      Their actions only seems illogical to most of us because we ASSUME that the leftist liberals are like us. That they share our worldview, values and love of America. This is where WE GO WRONG! This ASSUMPTION is totally false. The leftists are as different from us as if they were aliens from another world.

      The leftists do not love America as it was founded. Their ideology tells them that America is a deeply flawed, racist, sexist, imperialistic state. Their goal is to “transform America” into a version of their Utopian Marxist-Socialist State.

      One critical step in executing this ‘transformation’ is to disarm the population so that ‘counter-revolutionary’ forces among the population will not be able to offer armed resistance.

      So, if your goal is disarmament of the population, any step that you can take to discourage firearms ownership or make it as onerous and burdensome as possible is a ‘Positive Step in the Right Direction’ from their point of view.

      Therefore, piling on one burdensome anti-gun regulation after another, as is happening in blue States like New Jersey, is not simply “Feel good” legislation to reassure liberals. Rather, it is all part of a long-term process to disarm the population by executing a chain of increasingly burdensome and onerous laws and regulations.

      The leftist liberals will continue this process until their goal is realized. In other words, until effective disarmament of the population is achieved. Understand that this will not require 100% disarmament. If criminals and some ‘hold out’ 2nd Amendment supporters cling to their guns, well, that can be managed. The main point is to disarm at least 90% of the regular citizens.

      The leftist-controlled New Jersey legislature is simply advancing this goal in a methodical fashion in each session. Their approach is deceptive, in that they falsely claim that their purpose is crime control, but entirely logical. They have already made a good Start! Many New Jersey gun-owners are already giving up their guns, as too much trouble to own, or else simply leaving the State altogether. Either way, the population is being, slowly and methodically, more disarmed with each passing year.

      Why should they stop? It is WORKING!

      • I Agree with TN_MAN Whole Heartily, but somehow I doubt that America will receive any Liberty, or Equality,from the Great Halls of Government in that Corrupt Cesspool Called Washington, D.C, Won’t Arrive until the Day that all the Threes, & Lamp Posts, in D.C. Have Spouted the hanging Fruit of the Bodies, of 90% of the Liberals, who claim to Love, & Support “We The People”, mean while Actually Working, Day, & Night, to find an “Acceptable Method”, to change Our Beloved Constitutional Republic, into a “Liberal Democratic Dictatorship”, as Soon as Possible, so as not to be “Held Accountable for Their TREASON!!

      • I agree with TN_MAN. Only I would add that they pandering to / recruiting those outside of the firearms community who are uneducated concerning 2A issues and their rights and responsibilities to protect and defend their lives, families, and possibly our country.

  2. It is going to be interesting to see how these “bans” on magazines in common use work out. Thus far there has been widespread disobedience.

    As these cases are being litigated, it might be a good time to send the value of a box of ammo to a group like the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org).

  3. Mas, why are you still implying that the Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines? I know you’ve read the commission report that shows pictures of his full size magazines on page 242 and describes them as 30 and 40 round magazines. Do you think the official report is wrong? Otherwise, while it would be convenient for our argument if he had used only 10 round magazines, if he didn’t (and that seems to clearly be the case) I don’t think we help our cause by not being accurate in our debating of the issue.

    Respectfully,

    John Mohan

    P.S. Before this new New Jersey folly happened, I had already written off that State, New York and any other where I could be charged with a felony for simply possessing and bearing that which the U.S. Constitution affirms I have the right to possess and bear. If everybody who believes in that right would do the same, the economies of those anti-Constitutional States would crumble.

    • I read that the shooter said he used 10-rounders because they were more concealable. The shooter said so.
      I would not trust pictures in the news, even less the captions.

      • The local TV news used to run a big backdrop picture of a revolver when reporting stabbings and beatings…

        Sort of like the cities and PDs who use the same pictures for every “gun buy-back.”

    • I read recently that over a million people have left New York State, that they trend conservative, and that that is exactly what Governor Cuomo wants because it cements Democratic Party control of the state legislature.

      Whether a million is accurate or not, the trend is for people of various political persuasions to be sorting out geographically. That will make it virtually impossible to change Democratic strongholds, except through federal court rulings, or outright armed revolt.

      I’ve seen one civil war from the perspective of a civilian -Lebanon in the 1970s-; and have exactly zero interest in seeing another. Better to work for a better federal judiciary, because the control freaks aren’t going to get voted out of their strongholds any time soon,

  4. Laws which interfere with the ability of an individual to keep and bear arms for *ANY* legitimate purpose are on their face unconstitutional. This should be obvious. In a country where the foundational documents revere *INDIVIDUAL* FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY above all else, there is no room for such restrictive regulations. Punish those who actually *USE* their firearms (or anything else) to commit actual crimes and leave the rest of us alone. The representative who were elected to represent the citizens of New Jersey do not hold any legitimate authority to overrule the Constitution regardless of what the Third Circuit has decided.

  5. Same thing happened in New York State with the SAFE Act (2013): among other restrictions, the law limited magazine capacity to 7 rounds. The original law did not exempt the police here either- glad to see how well thought out these restrictions are in the gun-grabbing states. Since then, a federal judge ruled the 7 round limit unconstitutional because it was arbitrary. That means we are back to a 10 round limit in the mag- I guess that’s NOT arbitrary. Although the law technically still stands at 7, I don’t think it is enforced- but it is hard to get a straight answer on this.

    So how effective is the SAFE Act at reducing firearms-related violent crime? Most reviews I have seen indicated that the violent crime rate was already decreasing across NYS prior to the SAFE Act- has the downward trend accelerated? I have not come across any data on this- but in some areas of the state (e.g., Erie County) the rate of firearms-related violent crime has actually increased since the SAFE Act.

    I have not seen any data on the number of defensive gun uses per year in New York State vs. the number of firearms-related violent crimes. That would be illuminating. If those data are consistent with the recent CDC study (I believe NYS was one of the states included in the dataset) then I doubt the State of New York would be interested in having such data made public.

    Perhaps it’s a waste of time thinking that the government is interested in critically evaluating the effectiveness of a new law- especially those that infringe upon our civil rights. Data and science seem to mean less and less to politicians these days- unless data can be used or abused to solidify one’s hold on power.

  6. If everybody who believes in the Second Amendment moved out of the States, Cities, and/or Towns that violate that amendment, such locales would implode, both economically, and in terms of crime and devastation. It really is that simple. Just hard to do. But I did it. You can, too.

  7. Agree 100%, but there’s more to it than that. Turning us into felons is deliberate; if someone in authority should want to deal with us, it gives them a means of doing it. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Red-flag laws have the same ultimate purpose.

  8. Lots of craziness to go around. While on a walk today in Portland, Oregon, I stopped to chat with two local police officers sitting in their patrol cars. They informed me that the 9th Circuit Court had just ruled it is legal for a person openly go to the bathroom on city property, and there is nothing the police can do about it. Though I haven’t verified that court decision, if true it appears that doing your business in public is now protected by the 1st Amendment, e.g., it is free speech.

    • since when is taking a leak “speech”? These guys arre nuts, but that’s not news.

      Of course, there IS a problem in most larger cities, and I know from personal observation that much of Portland is bereft of places, accessible to the walking public, to relive one’s self. Restrooms are limited to paying customers only… and with good reason. I’ve walked into a stall after some homless guy has taken his toilet bath… paper strewn all over, water pooling on the floor, most of the TP gone, seat a filthy mess, litter all over the floor… and he’d ben in there fifteen minutes.
      Being a cliean decentl dressed adult male reasonably wel groomed and kept, and respecting the staff, I’ve never had a problem accessing “facilities” when in need. But when I am in my cycling togs in certain parts of town, finding a place to “go” is a real challenge…….

      Paris France had a real problem.. it used to be legal to just let go wherever you were.. but the whole city stank of yellow water. The commissioners finally realised they had made one change without regard to a real need, and failed to provide any out. So they set apart some funds to erect a series of public “cabinets d’eau” and thus solved the problem. Portland have few, if any, such outlets for one’s needs. Seattle is far worse, They deserve the rampant homelsss invasion, and they’ve subsidised it for so long they now have it…. and well deservedly so.

      • Tionico,

        Long ago a friend taught me to buy an inexpensive product from a business if I only need to use their restroom. This system works well. If the workers know what I am doing, they are OK with it because I have become a customer. It gives me a good excuse to indulge my taste buds in a sugary treat.

        If I can’t find anything to buy, I give a worker a tip. I used to give $1 but because of inflation I now give $2. I’ve had workers tell me I don’t need to buy anything, but I do it anyway.

        Capitalism works well when people are nice to each other. I’m sure many Communists have been created when they run into greedy, nasty, selfish capitalists. They then blame the system, instead of blaming the individual.

    • It looks like they were referring to this:

      https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/09/is_peeing_in_public_a_crime_no.html

      Where an appeals court said that a littering statute didn’t cover public urination. It has nothing to do with free speech. This has a very simple solution, pass a law making public urination illegal. I’d prefer the courts enforcing the law as written. The rule of law is more important than punishing someone who did something bad that wasn’t illegal.

  9. Mas,
    You could include me in the non-compliance individuals if Florida ever is stupid enough to follow suit. I guess that politicians are simply driven by optics. Imagine a police officer having to arrest their partner for having a 10+ round mag.

    • Rick Scott, then-Governor of Florida, now junior senator, signed more gun control into law. Now Marco Rubio, Florida’s senior senator, introduces a federal level red flag law. Looks like Florida has TWO anti-Second Amendment senators.

      What is going on in the once gun friendly Sunshine State? My wife and I are planning to move there to escape the socialist takeover of New York. Maybe Texas would be better?

      • VinFromNY, I am a Florida resident (transplant from the “Cosmopolitan NE”). My wife and I are considering another move to a likely (future) “freer” State. Sadly, too many transplants from communist states (I refer to the state’s governments, not the people) have come here, which is great. However, they bring their politics with them and vote “progressive” in local elections. That is why Florida is no longer solidly red. In addition, Bloomberg’s Everytown organization is dumping millions of $ here lobbying for infringement of Constitutional rights. Demographically, Florida above Latitude 28 deg 42 min is solidly red. Below 26 deg 32 min it is solidly blue (South Florida). The area in-between is in transition. Once the I-4 corridor goes blue (Orlando), the state is lost. Govern yourself accordingly. If you come, we welcome people of your persuasion (as long as you vote that way).

      • DavidinPensacola,

        Thanks for the information. Florida has long been close to a second home for us. So, I am concerned about the state’s future.

        I have liberal relatives that moved to Venice last year. Why? To escape the high taxes of New York State that THEY voted for! And yes- they took their liberal politics with them.

        Should my wife & I move to Florida or any other (for now) free state- we will be sure to vote to preserve and/or restore our country’s founding principles.

        This fight will continue for some time, it seems.

        Thanks again and best of luck to you.

      • You may like Arizona better than Texas. You might start with Prescott and travel around from there.

      • Strategic Steve,

        Thanks so much for the tip! I always knew this forum would be great for education on “all things gun,” but for moving and relocation planning?

        Nice to see so much mutual support among gun owners/pro-Second Amendment folks across the country.

  10. This is nothing more than an inconvenience law and itching away at our 2A rifgts, The democrats have also inconvinced hunters by making them submit to child support form in order to purchase hunting license. like a school yard kid calling other kids names.

  11. Its just more crap. It really is that simple. I’m never really sure if the opposition knows it’s crap and thats their angle to get whatever step they can take, or if they are genuinely devoid of knowledge and rational thought on the history and context of firearms ownership. Guess it doesn’t matter. The outcome is the same. Goes to whether there’s a hope in hell of getting these people ejumacated and using their noodle, or whether we end up eventually giving them what they seem to be begging for, which they most assuredly will not want when they behold it in full measure. Not fomenting here, but there’s a line at which guns owners will say “no more”. I reached mine quite a while back.

  12. Yup. But folks, the topic is on New Jersey law. If I remember correctly, when the mere mention of passing national reciprocity two years ago, I think I heard the governor himself say “…if anyone comes into MY state carrying gun, we’re locking their asses up–I DON’T CARE who it is, or what state you came from…”.

    Unconstitutional? Every time I hear people screaming about the constitutionality of state and federal laws I wanna take a shot of whiskey, spit and say SO? It is well known our rights are being eroded. SO? And it is known, that our deputized law enforcement has to enforce the laws that are passed. So where does that put us, “we the people”, being arrested on unconstitutional and ‘illegal’ laws, passed and put into effect by the elected government?

    I have friends who work at the local and federal level in many branches of law enforcement, and have ask them for a no BULL-S*** answer in enforcing illegal laws. For the most part of the no BULL answers, “…I have a job to do, I don’t interpret the law, thats up to the courts…”. Others have expressed they would not comply, depending on the task at hand, they have a family to feed and a pension/career to consider.

    Criminals don’t obey LAWFUL, laws. And with the sweep of the pen, the law abiding citizen is now deemed “criminal”. I reckon the pen IS mightier than the sword after all. “gulp”-spit, SO?

    Stay safe.

    • And it is known, that our deputized law enforcement has to enforce the laws that are passed

      Not so. The Constitution of the uNited States, together with ALL LAWS enacted innaccordance to it (federal , state, county, municipal) are thesupreme law of the land. All laws passed in opp[osition to or not compliant with the US Constitution are null, void, of no effect…. and thus not to be enforced.

      When tht BlooomingIdiotBurg bought his new “universal background check” law for us a few years back, all but two of our Conty sheriffs throughout the state openly declared they’d not enforce it. One said they’d never enforce it as a primary law, but MAY consider an add on to other charges when it might appear needful, such as the times when they smell a dead rat but can’t find it… but maybe they CAN prove the gun was transferred between friends without NICS involved. Only two sheriffs though the entire state did NOT say they’d refuse to enforce it.

      The record proves it, too…. likely tens of tousand os “noncompliant” transfers since then, and only two prosecutions and I belive one conviction.
      I understand seversl sheriffs in NY state have declared they won’t go after SAFE act violators’ for the same reason.

      Then there is always the other remedy… jury nullification. We should all be active and available for jury duty, play it safe to get seated, then whenever there is any doubt, skanky “evidence”, or the law itself is stupid like mag cap limits, bans on certain classes of common guns, etc… or, as in New Jersey, a commoner has hollow point defensive ammunition with his handgun.. EACH ROUND is a felony count in New Jersay. Nullify that one in a heart beat. Refuse to convict in such cases.

  13. The powers-that-be of New Jerky and New Joke have commiecally high taxes, commiecally self-serving attitudes, and commiecally high noses in the air passing law after law for ‘the good of the people’. Why has there not been an uprising? Wait…is that it?… the sound coming from the mountains? Oh, wow. No, it must have been a Billary belch from their high perch as they feed on the sheeple. They are winning in their own back yard at least.

  14. New York is ready to pass laws requiring gun owners to purchase $1million in liability insurance. And, another law will require CCW applicants & prospective gun buyers to have their internet searches & social media probed for hate speech.

    Time to go shopping before this happens- and then head to a free state. How is hate speech to be defined? Rather loosely I bet with respect to gun owners.

  15. One wonders when (or if) the SCOTUS will ever act to address these (clearly) unconstitutional gun laws? They passed the Heller and McDonald decisions. The effort of doing this work apparently exhausted them because they have laid down and went to sleep (as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned) for the last eight (8) years.

    In their absence, the leftist judges in the lower courts have set about, with determination, to undermine and gut both the Heller and McDonald decisions in any way possible. The most ridiculous legal theories are being accepted and endorsed. All the theory need do is undercut Heller and/or McDonald to be accepted by some of these lower, leftist courts.

    If the SCOTUS will not defend or clarify the scope of these decisions, then why the hell did the SCOTUS even make them in the first place?

    I think the near even ideological split, on the high court, is the ultimate reason for their inaction. One wonders if the recent appointments of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been enough to wake the SCOTUS up from its long slumber? Or will it take a larger bucket of cold water? Perhaps provided by the replacement of Justice Ginsburg?

    Only time will tell. However, the High Court is in dereliction of its duty by refusing to hear any of these important 2nd Amendment cases. I think that there is at least one Justice on the Court, Clarence Thomas, who would agree with me on that point!

    • One wonders if the recent appointments of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been enough to wake the SCOTUS up from its long slumber?

      I’m going to say, No.

      Justice Gorsuch sits in Antonin Scalia’s seat, but only time will tell if he replaces him, if you know what I mean. Gorsuch is doing pretty well so far, but Scalia left a very high bar and large boots to fill.

      Justice Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy … and is living up to that legacy. I wouldn’t expect too much from him; his history and his SCOTUS jurisprudence thus far has been, “If Congress passed it, it’s probably Constitutional.” IOW, he’s a big believer in “law and order” — he as much as said so during his confirmation hearings: “I will follow the law.” — and will only, if ever, strike down a standing law if the Constitutional violations are particularly and clearly egregious.

      If Trump gets to appoint a replacement for Justice Ginsburg, I also wouldn’t expect too much, especially if the Dems gain control of the Senate (which I expect in the next election or two). I predict no big shake-ups of SCOTUS anytime soon.

  16. As to standard capacity mags used by the demented Parkland kid, I read very soon after the incident that the kid had used ten rounders because they fit into his rifle carry bag better. I have not yet seen a point by pint crime scene analisis report. I’d not trust one word from the enemedia. Nor much from the school board or admin people.

    As to the Las Vegas incident… the video footage from the first breach of the alledged rifleman’s nest did not show much, No piles of spent cartridges, no ejected mags lying about….. I did see some still “evidence images” released with the supposed accurate report, showing some fifteen rifles… some fittd with brand new bump stocks, most of those with no sighting insruments of any kind, rifles seeming to have been carefully placed.. but I KNOW the rules of such evidence images is that they are always taken with NOTHING touched or moved or covered/uncovered. It just looked staged. Some of those weapons had VERY high cap mags, a couple had what they labelled one hundred round drum magazines.

    BUT.. we’ve never seen any ballistics analises from the recovered prujectiles in the target zone area to positively link ANY of the firearms in the room with what was picked up “on the floor” down on the concert arena. Yes, I know bullets can be very deformed when they hit concrete.. but many did not. Some were recovered from victims, lodged in other places. NOT ONE report on any of them has linked any of the arms found in the creep’s nest.
    I believe some folks have filed FOIA requests/demands for the first footage taken as the room was first breached, and the look abot inside. I’d want to see a report from someone who knows what’s what in such matters…..

    Personally I can’t accept a word I’ve seen in the mainstream or government media on that “incident”. I’m almost convinced both of these events were false flag pieces of theatre to “justify” bannning a whole lot of things. bumpstocks, standard capacity mags, AR type rifles, have already been severely attacked in the aftermath of these two events. And the Fat Lady ain’t sang yet…….

    • I found a mainstream media story (for what it is worth) that lists the weapons recovered in relation to the Las Vegas Shooting. In particular, it lists the 24 weapons supposedly recovered from the hotel room itself. See this link:

      https://www.abc15.com/news/las-vegas-shooting/list-guns-and-evidence-from-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock

      If you analyse the 24 weapons, listed as taken from the hotel room, they break down as follows:

      Semi-automatic rifles with no bump stocks = 5
      Semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks and some kind of functional sight = 9
      Semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks but no sights of any kind = 7
      Semi-automatic rifle with bump stock and front sight only = 1
      Bolt-Action rifle with telescopic sight = 1
      38 Caliber Revolver = 1

      Therefore, according to this report, 17 of the 24 firearms (71%) were fitted with bump stocks. However, 8 of them would have been useful only for close range point-shooting due to the absence of functional sights. The ones fitted with red dot sights might have been used at longer range, but given the climb of a bump stock, only for area fire in my opinion.

      The non-bump stock fitted semi-automatics and the bolt action rifle could have been used for more accurate long-range shooting.

      However, no effort was made (as far as I can see) to tie any of the firearms to any specific shooting victims. I am not aware of any such detailed information being published.

      Anyway, for what it is worth, this is what the MSM claims.

  17. Mas, can we get some mitigation strategies? We have seen peak gun freedoms for at least a couple more years. With howling monkeys in charge, you get banana republics… The problem lies not with the monkeys, but with those who elected them. There are enough crazy people that allow the numbers to be tipped by rigging. So how do we reduce the odds of running afoul in the mean time?

  18. Since my original comment, I conducted a little online research, though is it by no means exhaustive, and not performed by a legal expert.

    The September 2018 Oregonian article only discusses public urination as being deemed legal by the Oregon Court of Appeals, not the other bodily function. However, I think it’s safe to assume that public defecation is legal too because it doesn’t violate the State’s public indecency laws. Related is the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, also in September 2018, in which it notes that exposing one’s private parts in California while in the act of public “relief” (my description) is not “sexual stimulation of the viewer” and is therefore legal.

    Do I agree with this nonsense? Hell no, but I’m stuck with the higher state and US courts’ decisions, and my former gem of a city is buried under mounds of trash, dirty IV needles, and human waste.

    But there is some hope: A few people in Portland’s Montavilla neighborhood are banding together and “harassing” the homeless (e.g., bums, tramps, yeggs, lunatics, druggies and winos) and trying to move them along. See https://www.kptv.com/news/members-of-montavilla-initiative-group-accused-of-harassing-homeless-people/article_aecbd490-0d73-11e9-b30c-1b7859668a9b.html.

  19. There was an article (I believe in the Washington Times) about Boulder, CO passing a ban on so called “assault weapons” (basically anything that takes a detachable magazine) and magazine bans. IIRC, there’s some type of voluntary “certificaton” (IT’S NOT REGISTRATION!-so they say) to allow folks who currently have them to continue to own them.

    It’s been generally ignored even by the local lefties. Wonder if they’ll vote the politicos who passed it out or just do a passive resistance?

  20. This is off topic but I found this news story interesting:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mma/man-tries-to-rob-ufc%E2%80%99s-polyana-viana-in-rio-de-janeiro-pays-painful-price/ar-BBRSXM1?li=BBnba9I&srcref=rss

    This would seem to be a classic case of “A failure of the Victim Selection Process” as Mas puts it! 🙂

    It just goes to show that you have to stand up and enforce your rights in this world. You will never prosper if you tamely submit to those that would oppress you.

    Come to think about it, maybe this comment is not off-topic at all. It is a lesson that gun-owners in ‘blue’ States need to take to heart.

  21. I just listened to the 911 recording of the call made by Jamie Closs’s heroic rescuers. It took 28 minutes and 30 seconds for the first responding police officers to arrive at the Kasinskas’ home (by the time strip on the recording). All the while, the maniac who killed Jamie’s parents in front of her and held her captive for 3 months was on the loose and in the immediate area. You all should point that out the next time someone tells you honest, law-abiding citizens should not have access to firearms that are as easy to use and hold as many bullets as the criminals’ weapons do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *