New Jersey Assembly Passes One Gun A Month

[billbuckhead]

New Jersey Assembly Passes One Gun A Month

Finally today, the great work of Ceasefire NJ continues to bear fruit– the New Jersey Assembly has approved a bill that would limit gun purchases per person in that state to one gun per month.

New Jersey yesterday moved closer to becoming the fourth state to prohibit people from buying more than one handgun a month when the Assembly voted, 51-25, to impose the limit.

A key aim of the bill is to combat so-called straw buyers, who legally purchase firearms in bulk to sell on the black market.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy is among those pushing for the state law, which would exempt law enforcement agencies and officers purchasing handguns for official use. Certain gun collectors also would be exempted.

Of course, while such a bill would definitely be welcome in New Jersey (and anywhere it hasn’t already passed), the real problem here isn’t gun sales in New Jersey, where gun laws are already relatively strong. The real problem is actually guns coming from Pennsylvania. There, straw purchases can give criminals firearms by the cratefull. That’s where a one-gun-a-month law is really needed, and yet legislators continue to ignore their citizens when they ask for it.
--------------snip-----------------------
<http://www.gunguys.com/>

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

11. Pot, meet kettle!

:evilgrin:

[bluerum]

2. And I am sure Pa. is not the worst offender in regard to sane firearm regualtion. eom

[karlrschneider]

3. So which are worse...since you're sure.

??

[billbuckhead]

4. Pennsylvania is very bad, New Jersey very good

Compare your state.
<http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=PA>

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

77. Ah, a good old non-biased website

No one does unbiased reporting on gun control like the Brady Center :sarcasm:

[bluerum]

70. Ha ha. You are funny. Pick just any state west of the Mississippi and

east of the Rockies.

I would bet that their gun laws are, shall we say, not particularly rigorous.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I think it's fine to be able to walk into a drugstore and pick up a handgun on a Friday afternoon. :sarcasm:

[dsc]

63. Ohio is hidious

I literally can't imagine it is not worse.

[derby378]

6. Yet one more anti-gun law for criminals to ignore...

...while law-abiding citizens in NJ find themselves getting the shaft.

Thanks, Ceasefire NJ! Looking forward to the upcoming police state!

[karlrschneider]

7. When guns are outlawed only criminals and the government will have them.

Yeah, I know it's a catch phrase the gun grabbers love to ridicule but they can't deny its truth.

[originalpckelly]

9. Oh come on, we don't need no stinkin' common sense!

We've got the government to tell us what's good for us!

[karlrschneider]

19. The frightening thing is that some believe it. Some DUers even.

:grr:

[billbuckhead]

13. Yeah like in Europe, only 46 homicides in Britain last year

:eyes: Only 46 Homicides in Britain last year, a twenty year low and a murder rate 1/3 of ours with almost the same exact assault rate. Ridicule that.

[originalpckelly]

15. Britain is careening toward a police state.

I would suggest picking another country.

[billbuckhead]

16. And we're not and with the NRA crowd cheering it on the whole way

Hey, we're the ones with the west's largest prison population. Deny that.

[originalpckelly]

24. I think that you're interest in having us give up one of the most fundamental rights...

is probably doing just about as much as the Republican's in turning America into a police state.

One of the reasons we have such a large prison population is due to the criminalization of drugs, which is incidentally the same reason that there is so much crime. When crime is no longer a billion dollar business, then America will be safer.

[karlrschneider]

26. How dare you inject logic into a perfectly good hysterical argument!

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

33. The argument being forwarded is similar to that used by the Republicans for the 4th/8th Amendment.

It makes an erroneous presumption, that the people using guns to break very severe laws against killing/shooting people, will follow far less severe laws about gun registration/etc.

It's much like the President presuming we know that the people at GITMO are terrorists. In the case of torture and the ticking time bomb scenario, we must presume that we can know with absolute certainty that someone knows where a nuclear weapon is without actually knowing the location of that weapon ourselves.

Because of these logical fallacies, the arguments become more weighty, they seem more realistic, but when one examines them they easily fall apart once the fallacy is known.

[billbuckhead]

36. It's my opinion and the ACLU's that guns for everyone is not a fundemental right

In fact the NRA's rotting misinterpretation of what the 2nd amendments means will it will be standing long after other rights are gone. It sure hasn't been a threat to the Bushg regime and is often used as threat to prospective liberal governments, say if Obama wins.

I know the ACLU are fascists in gunworld.

[Edweird]

58. Uh, War On Drugs. Heard of it?

[krispos42]

66. And that is the NRA's doing.... how? n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

They WILL NOT listen to you

I gave up long ago disseminating that fact. And Toronto, Canada has a gun murder rate of about 30 a year. A few years ago, after 8 years of a conservative Provincial government cutting back on education and other social services, there was a "spike" in gun violence in Toronto, up to 60 or so gun murderers in one single year. This lead to public outrage, while cities like Detroit and Los Angeles and Chicago and even New York, which boasted recently about it's dramatic reduction in gun crime, has 5 to 8 times that rate.

Gun control is an essential piece of the puzzle that reduces gun crime in every other industrialized nation on the planet. It's not the only piece, but it is a piece nonetheless.

Try as you might, the gun enthusiasts, who generally live in rural areas without gangs and drugs and other social decay that is unique only to a city, will plug their ears and cover their eyes and shut their mouths whenever you point out the fact that other countries, with social safety nets, as well as adequate gun laws, have a microscopic gun crime rate when compared with that of the United States.

[krispos42]

67. I want the total crime rate reduced

Billbuckhead LOVES to crow about the measely 46 people killed with guns in the UK per year. He steadfastly refused to address the fact that the total homicide rate in the UK has been steadily increasing since 1967 until it is literally double what it was.

Double!

They used to have 0.75 homicides per 100,000 people per year. Now it's at about 1.5.

The piece of the pie that is guns has gotten very small in the UK. But the pie has gotten much bigger. That is not progress.

[mudesi]

72. Two points

1) It's disingenuous for you to say you want "all crime" reduced. We are talking about gun crime, which is a vastly different beast than other violent crime. Just admit that your interest and enthusiasm for guns biases your opinion in this matter.

2) Your purported number of the British homicide rate, while doubled, is still microscopic compared to that of the United States. So even with your number of 1.5, your point is muddled. I also wonder why you conveniently neglect to mention any increase in America's gun crime rate.

United Kingdom: Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
0.102579 per 100,000

United States: Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
2.79271 per 100,000

Canada:Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
0.502972 per 100,000

I thought I said I gave up doing this. "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in". :evilgrin:

[krispos42]

76. Welcome to the Topic That Won't Die!!!! :-)

1) I don't think it is, particularly. There are a variety of known, proven ways to reduce homicide and violent crime rates. Most aspects of gun control, especially the politically hot ones, are not among them.

I do thing there are several federal guns laws that can be enacted that would actually reduce crime. Magazine limits and banning pistol grips are not among them.

2) The homicides rate in the UK is not "microscopic", it is one-third of the US'. Our homicides rate is about a 4.5, the UK's is about 1.5. That's per 100,000 per year.

So the UK's homicide rate is one-third that of ours, or about 33%. It used to be about one-ninth of ours, or about 12%. Our homicide rate compared to 40 years ago is actually down by 15-20%, while theirs is up 100%.

In the UK, there are two major things that, according to people like gunguys.com, should have drastically reduced crimes and murder, the 1988 assault-weapons ownership ban and the 1997 handgun ownership ban. In addition, the UK is spending plenty of pounds sterling on 4-million-plus police-monitored public-area surveillance cameras.

Either these three things are inheirently ineffective, or else things in the UK have taken such a terrible turn fo the worse that the benefits of them have been overtaken by decaying social order.

Regardless of how it is compared to ours, the question is "Why has the UK allowed it to double?" They don't compares themselves to us, they compare themselves to themselves.

When the US homicides rate took a steep climb in the 70s and 80s, we didn't say "Well, what's the problem? Our rate is only one-fourth that of Columbia!" We took actions to try to stop it. Not the right ones, apparently.

3) For several reasons I have an interest in this issue. And since I've spend some time and effort learning about firearms and related topics, I try to make myself useful.

[krispos42]

65. And UK's homicide rate is at a 40-year high n/t

[michreject]

74. WE ARE NOT EUROPE

If I remember correctly, we, as an armed populist kicked Britians ass.

[spoony]

75. Uh, cite?

The last BCS report was for '05 and '06 and says:

"There were 765 homicides in 2005/06, a decrease of 12% from the previous year. The homicide figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings. The number of police recorded firearm offences increased by less than 1%."

[originalpckelly]

8. Oh come on now, don't you want to be safe?

The gun terrists gun-ah getcha!

[derby378]

10. Ooooh, I'm so scared!

:rofl:

Sometimes you just have to laugh in order to mask the pain...

[originalpckelly]

12. It's scary to see some people on our side willing to give up their rights for supposed protection...

much in the same way Republicans are willing to give up the 4th Amendment to be "safe" from terrorism.

[billbuckhead]

14. Last time 2nd amendment milita fought the government was Confederacy

On Uncle Billy Sherman's march to the sea the Union army used local miltias for target practice for their new repeating rifles.

BTW, who's to say these made up militias won't fight an Obama government or a Hillary government or a Kucinich government or a Gore government or a Clark government..........

[derby378]

21. Where the Helen Keller did you get that notion?

That wasn't a Second Amendment miitia - that's what the British referred to as a "co-belligerent." I suggest snuggling up on the couch with some snacks and Ken Burns' The Civil War on DVD.

[-..__...]

30. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?!?"

"Forget it, he's rolling".

[derby378]

31. Don't tell me it's time to "cut the cake" again!

:rofl:

[NickB79]

22. LOL, still beating that drum eh?

You got smacked down on the last thread you used that line on when another poster posted the names of DOZENS of state militias that fought in the Union Army against the Confederates, yet here you are repeating it almost verbatim. Amazing.

[billbuckhead]

37. They were foreunners of the National guard not 2nd amendment pickup army's

Sorry they looked and acted like the National Guard. if you want to take the position like former Supreme Court Cheif justice Warren Burger and many other leading jurists that the 2nd amendment just applies to having a National Guard then take that postion but don't try to have it both ways. Thew truth is that these 2nd amendment pickup miltias failed miserably when they left the British burn down our capital and also when the Confederate regular army failed and they were the last resort.

[NickB79]

52. Yeah, they were only 40 years ahead of their time

The National Guard wasn't created until 1903, a few decades AFTER the US Civil War occurred.

"if you want to take the position like former Supreme Court Cheif justice Warren Burger and many other leading jurists that the 2nd amendment just applies to having a National Guard then take that postion but don't try to have it both ways."

So, what's implied is that for first half of our nation's history, the 2nd Amendment applied to NO ONE, since there was no National Guard before 1903? Were the Founding Fathers psychic and could see the future or something when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

[krispos42]

68. Not surprising

He keeps crowing about the mere 46 people killed by gunfire in the UK last year while ignoring the record-high overall homicide levels.

It's my job to keep mentioning it as much as possible!






Did I mention the homicide rate in the UK is at record highs?

:rofl:

[billbuckhead]

82. Did I mention the Brits murder rate is only one third of ours

even though they have the same assault rate. Nothing to laugh about>

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[murloc]

18. Do straw buyers go to NJ(!!) to buy bulk guns?

lol.

NJ is proably the last state that gun runners would turn to.

Oh well. It probably makes somebody feel good.

[Edweird]

20. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

I am 100% against unqualified/unpermitted/illegal gun ownership. Reasonable measures that help prevent that will get my support.

[-..__...]

25. More useless legislation from the brainiacs that passed...

A smart gun bill. :eyes:

[Mind_your_head]

27. ROFL at that headline

:spray:

[originalpckelly]

29. Imagine if that gun went off!

That would smart!
:rofl:

[Mind_your_head]

34. You owe me a new keyboard now!

;-)

especially since post #28 says the whole process is a 'pain in the ass'.

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

35. !

:rofl:

Sorry about the keyboard!

[davepc]

28. The permitting process is such a pain in the ass it made sense to get mutiple permits at a time

to save on the hassle of spending a few hours at the local trooper barracks or police station every single time you want to purchase a new handgun.

Now you get to waste your time every single time you wish to buy a gun, even though the state ALREADY issues Firearm owners ID cards that are only acquired after getting vetted by the local police/state trooper barracks.

So the police check you out and give you an Firearm ID card. Then, every time you want to buy a handgun you have to apply for a permit for each and every gun.

Not for nothing, but if I was planning on using a gun in a crime I'd probably skip the whole process and get it from a black market seller off the street.

I guess this will keep people who want to follow the law (which basically requires face to face interaction with the police department) from....well...buying to many guns at once.

or something.

sure to impact crime in this state. can't argue with that.

[Blue-Jay]

32. It only takes one gun to kill a person.

This is an ineffective and stupid new law. What's the point?

[billbuckhead]

38. That's right it helps keep that one extra gun off the street

and raise prices. One less gun is out there.

[Blue-Jay]

42. What?

[karlrschneider]

39. And it only takes one hammer to kill someone too.

How many hammers should I be allowed to buy in a month?

[billbuckhead]

40. Would you rather someone was chasing you with a hammer or an assault rifle?

Hammers are poor substitutes for guns.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

44. Which assault rifle do you want? How about an AK-74?

I like what Wes Clark said about assault rifles so much. "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-14>

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

61. Good thing there are very few assault rifles in the US

I own an AR-15, but as you stated below, I don't own an assault rifle. I own a "miltary style semiautomatic". What exactly was Clark talking about then?

[billbuckhead]

78. Most people see all military style rifles as assault rifles

And it is hard for the public to tell a difference and is one of these reasons these guns should be banned. I don't see any utility for society in either semiautomatic or automatic military style rifles. Bad for hunting game but good for hunting humans.

[NickB79]

80. So, because the general populace is ignorant of basic firearms regulations

Such as the fact that assault rifles have been tightly regulated already since 1934, we should pander to their ignorance by banning semi-automatic rifles that have been available since before 1900?

You've probably never had to "handle" a pack of feral dogs attacking your cattle in a pasture. A semi-automatic weapon comes in very handy at that point, though I suppose a pump or lever action rifle could have done almost as well.

[billbuckhead]

81. To me it's like a Jeep Cherokee 4x4 vs a 2wd Jeep Cherokee

They're both Cherokees

[-..__...]

84. You might think differntly...

if you had to drive in the North East during the Winter months.

[Blue-Jay]

43. depends...How fast can they run?

[billbuckhead]

45. It's just not how fast they run, you might be able to whip their ass or hit them with a brick

While with an assault rifle, they can just shoot bursts from the hip.

I'm not against self defense at all. Just against so many having easy access to guns. I want a solution similar to what other advancing nations have. Hell, even Switzerland is changing. I also think it's a big lie that common people with semiautomatic weapons could really screw with modern miltarys. RPG's, explosives, anti-tank missles, mortars, IED's, Barret 50cal's, maybe. "Black rifles" and hunting rifles? That would be a very sad joke.

[Blue-Jay]

46. What if they only have one arm, and can't aim well?

Can I still hit them with a brick?

[-..__...]

55. Funny you should mention that.

Included in the language of AB 3511...

Full text

No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued:

Snip...

(3) To any person who suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him to handle firearms, to any person who has ever been confined for a mental disorder...

The law doesn't specify what qualifies as a "physical defect".

I wonder if ADA activists are aware of this?

[krispos42]

69. Minnesota issued a pistol permit to a blind guy

Then they tried to take it back. The guy sued, and won.

So somewhere in Minnesota is a guy with a cane and a pistol. Be careful! :-)


Incidently, when I got my pistol permit in South Dakota, I didn't have to prove I could see, either. Wasn't on the application!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

49. Explain yourself? By the way, answer the question? Hammer or assault rifle?

:nopity: Answer the question?

[Blue-Jay]

50. Is it a large hammer?

[billbuckhead]

51. I had someone come after me with a baseball bat, I took it off him. No one hurt

I hate to think he would have had a gun.

As far the hammer, whatever hammer you would like wouldn't do too well against a gun. No hatchet is different matter. One could throw it like a tomahawk and do some damage. I knew someone who practiced throwing one that way.

[Blue-Jay]

53. What about the hammer of Thor?

That would be pretty cool to have against a gun, don't ya think?

[-..__...]

57. If that's unavailable...

might I suggest the "Death Stick" hammer?

It's BIG!...

It's BAD!...

It's BEAUTIFUL!...

It's BLACK!...



And at $35.95 is very affordable!

http://www.medfordtools.com/hammers/ds21.html

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

86. What do you mean? An African or European Hammer?

Which kind is better at opening coconuts?

[NickB79]

54. Hmmm, my assault rifle must be broken then

When I try to fire "bursts", it only fires one round at a time when I pull the trigger. And whenever I try to shoot "from the hip" my aim goes to crap. Hell, it's even one of those evil-looking black AR-15 assault rifles. Man, I got ripped off.

[billbuckhead]

56. Then you have a miltary style semiautomatic, look it up

It's hard for the public to tell automatics from semi automatics or even air rifles. That's hard on society and contributes to many of the problems of guns in America.

[NickB79]

59. Yes, that is indeed what I own

But that's my point exactly. You stated:

"While with an assault rifle, they can just shoot bursts from the hip."

You then must realize that there are very, very few true assault rifles in this country, that each and every one has been regulated by federal laws since 1934, and that they are almost never used in crimes. Why even mention assault rifles then, unless you're pandering to the fears of those very Americans who can't tell the difference between semi-automatic and true assault rifles?

[derby378]

71. I think he knows, but doesn't care

It's a rifle with polymer handguards and a pistol grip for added safety and stability, so it must be bad.

[billbuckhead]

79. You're right, I don't see any utility in the public having any miltary style rifles

I agreed with that Zumbo guy before they sent him to the Gun lobby Gitmo.

[hyphenate]

60. Geez--

I thought this was about something else. I was going to say passing a gun a month would be awfully hard on a guy, dontcha think? It's a lot larger than a stone, that's for sure!

[Trehuggr]

62. LOL

now that was funny

[krispos42]

64. Shocking! A state creates an artificial demand...

the market reacts, and the state looks suprised at the result!

"We imposed a $5-a-gallon gasoline tax! Nobody could anticipate people driving an hour to buy gasoline in Pennsylvania! WHY WON'T PENNSYLVANIA VALIDATE OUR INSANITY BY PUTTING A $5-A-GALLON GAS TAX IN PLACE, TOO!?!?!?!?"



I see more fair and balanced reporting from the Fox News of the gun-control debate, gunguys.com!!!!!

[Bright Eyes]

73. OH NO!

how will we protect our families with only one gun a month!!??




-A New Jersey Resident

[Pavulon]

83. news flash, camden is no longer an armpit...

oh wait, it still sucks. This law will make it all beter

[derby378]

85. Early morning ROFL!

:rofl: