Glad I moved to NJ!

Status
Not open for further replies.

PR-NJ

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
184
Location
Peoples Republic of New Jersey...no more
NJ ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER SCHOOL GROUNDS PENALTY INCREASE


Possession of all BB guns and air guns would carry 7-10 year prison sentences with no possibility of leniency.

Parents picking up their children at school after hunting or target shooting would also be at risk.

Victim disarmament zones would be ensured.

On Thursday, June 7 at 2:00 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A1216, legislation that would increase the penalty for possession of a "firearm" on the grounds of an educational institution, raising it from a third to second degree crime. Second degree crimes carry a presumptive 7-10 year prison sentence and a fine of up to $150,000, with no opportunity for New Jersey's "pre-trial intervention leniency program, and very limited sentencing discretion by the judge.

New Jersey's definition of "firearm" includes all BB guns and air guns, even though they are commonly regarded as toys in much of the country. Someone who mistakenly possesses a BB gun or air gun on school grounds - even a broken one - would be subject to the lengthy and unforgiving prison sentence that A1216 imposes, with no possibility of leniency, and a presumption in favor of imprisonment.

Also, parents picking up their children at school after hunting or target shooting, or to go hunting or target shooting, would also be at risk of A1216's draconian punishment if they enter on school grounds with a firearm unloaded and properly stored in their vehicle, even though they are not involved in criminal activity.

This thoughtless legislation also virtually ensures that New Jersey schools would become victim disarmament zones - even teachers licensed with gun permits would be subject to lengthy incarceration, chilling their right of self-defense to protect themselves and school children from attack.

Ironically, A1216 is a "solution" to a problem that has already been solved. Firearms possession for an unlawful purpose is already a second degree crime in New Jersey, so this legislation adds nothing except cruel and unusual punishment for innocent mistakes.
 
I can just see it now . Middleaged father going into the pen with murders ,rapist, and robbers.Then someone asking him what are you in for? Possesion of a bb gun.
 
Moving isnt always an option for people. It takes funds to move. Plus jobs, children, family, and more can stop a person from moving. Its easy to tell someone to just move. I live in Upstate NY. The laws are ridiculous but its home. Should I have to move to be free from opression? Give up living where my family has for generations?

Abandoning a state isnt the answer. Voting and correcting its flaws in leadership and regulations are. Its not an easy task but I think its the right move.
 
Hey, we also have lots of room here in New Mexico too. Extremely gun friendly. Come on down, as the man said. :D
 
I'm so happy to have moved out of that area myself. (Mass)

It's a whole different world here in Florida. :cool:
 
If one is subject to harsh laws where they reside, with no indication that things will change anytime soon, moving IS sometimes an appropriate response. Family history aside, would you rather cling to the past and have your freedoms restricted, or start fresh where one can have something resembling freedom when it comes to gun ownership? I too love my home stte, and would be hard pressed to leave....but would seriously consider it if I had to deal with a fraction of what some people must deal with where they live.
 
And some folks thing Chris Christie would be a good Vice Presidential candidate??? Short of moving though, just what can the poor folks of NJ do? Seems to be a lost cause. They residents are so used to having their freedoms taken away, they don't even see it when it happens anymore. My family moved out in 1978. I've been back for exactly seven days since then, two of those days being for a funeral.

Realistically, the only hope is for federal intervention in the matter with the second amendment getting the priority it deserves. Short of that, there is no way a "gun enthusiast" has a chance in NJ anymore.

I'll never forget, when mom & dad wanted to get bb guns for my brother and I for Christmas, she had to get a firearms permit. This was back in 1971. It's been a sewer for a long, long time.
 
Abandoning a state isnt the answer. Voting and correcting its flaws in leadership and regulations are. Its not an easy task but I think its the right move.

Maybe. But to be realistic there are some states where the majority of voters support the leftist/liberal/progressive way of life, and it would take a massive shift of demographics to affect any change. Moving is not easy for many reasons, but it is an option that should be considered.
 
This is why I oppose laws to regulate even types of firearms I'd never have any interest in owning. When an anti-gun co-worker once asked me why I would ever need a "machine gun", my response was that I do not have any desire at this time to own what is currently regarded as a "machine gun" in Florida, or in most of the US. But, when a state decides to define a "machine gun" as any semi-automatic gun that holds more than ten rounds in its magazine, that opens up a practice of redefinition I cannot accept. I bet there is a fair share of people who would happily gift an airgun to a youth who themselves have no desire to own a firearm.
 
So vote with your feet and move South.

Exactly.

Not abandoning a state that continues to enact asinine laws...and tax you for your troubles....is borderline masochistic. So, yes, Virginia, moving your tax dollars to a different state is a very credible option.

Take from a NJ escapee...home is where you hang your hat.
 
Upstate NY is a gun paradise compared to downstate. You can actually use a C&R FFL for long arms and buy pre 1899 and muzzle loader firearms without a city permit.

NYS' biggest problem is that they allow cities over a certain size to enact their own gun laws. Strike that, the problem is they allow them to enact any law.

I hear so much complaining about laws in place and nothing about people trying to use referendums and ballot initiatives to change them.


Moving isnt always an option for people. It takes funds to move. Plus jobs, children, family, and more can stop a person from moving. Its easy to tell someone to just move. I live in Upstate NY. The laws are ridiculous but its home. Should I have to move to be free from opression? Give up living where my family has for generations?

Abandoning a state isnt the answer. Voting and correcting its flaws in leadership and regulations are. Its not an easy task but I think its the right move.
 
Last edited:
Cut the money cord. Freedom aint free..

We have thousands in this state that will vote to reelect a US Senator who is rabid anti gun-anti life.

The union told me so will be their excuse.
 
Moving has some good side-effects. NJ just lost a house seat, and will keep losing them (and influence) if people keep leaving.
 
I moved to NM from NJ in 1977, at least in part because of their stupid laws and being too crowded. Never regretted the move for a second. Just wish I had no relatives there so I would never have to visit.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2
 
New Jersey's anti-gun attitude goes back quite bit. In 1966 the Firearms ID card became law and that law served as an inspiration for Illinois and Massachusetts to enact their own firearms card schemes as well.

By my research, a permit to buy a hand gun was already in effect at least since 1954. And now a permit was going to be required to buy rifles and shotguns. A permit that required two reference checks, fingerprints, mental health check, criminal back ground check, fees and a long wait for the permit. And this was a full two years before the 1968 gun control law went into effect in the United States!

The architect for the law as NJ Attorney General Arthur Sills, Sills (it was reported) was also giving input to Senator Thomas Dodd (CT) for the upcoming 1968 GCA.

Sills had a public hearing in March 2 1966 (for the FID law) held during the day when people were at work and unable to leave their jobs to attend. Instead of having thousands of people protesting, it was 'decided' for all the pro gun groups and their members to be 'represented' by a single group.

While this appears to be a neat idea, all the opposition to this law was channeled into a single group and thus taking away the appearance of large segments of the population who were really against this law. So only a few really represented the pro-gun community and far fewer were allowed to speak in this (in my opinion) way too short hearing.

Long story short, the law passed. It was challenged, and by a judges ruling it was allowed to stand calling the second amendment a "public convenience".

When the 1966 FID law was challenged and stayed.. on August 11 1966 Judge Milton B. Conford rules that "the balance of public convenience is not for interference of enforcement of this statute" . The next day, August 12 1966, the law took effect.

So how did NJ get this way? Some have pointed to a 1947 Constitutional Convention that left out the second amendment.

http://conservativenewjersey.com/handguns-banned-in-new-jersey


Interestingly enough, there was yet another Constitutional Convention again in NJ, 1966 to be exact. Coincidence?

Why all the history and mention of these hearings and the legalities? So this does not happen again in another state under some guise of doing the right thing or public health and welfare as were some of the reasons spouted back in 1966.

Another lesson to be learned, while there is strength in numbers and joining a group to have a larger voice can be a good thing. It is the amount of people responding to something that will get attention. If every person who was a gun owner in 1966 in NJ would have individually fought this law in 1966, the FID law might have not passed.

If the second amendment was specifically spelled out in 1947 in the Constitutional Convention, perhaps the 1966 FID law would not, could not have been drafted.
Whatever, lets see that the 1966 law does not happen again,....anywhere.

And this latest legislation from NJ needs to be defeated now. Gun owners in NJ and gun owners in other states need to band together to voice their opposition to this.
 
If the second amendment was specifically spelled out in 1947 in the Constitutional Convention, perhaps the 1966 FID law would not, could not have been drafted.
Whatever, lets see that the 1966 law does not happen again,....anywhere.

Unfortunately, Michigan had such wording in it's 1835 constitution, and even sidestepped the controversy of a "well regulated militia" preamble:

Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Which was carried through every Michigan Constitution right up to today's, with only minor wording added to recognize the right to "keep:"

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

But it took until 2001 for Michigan to become a "Shall Issue" CCW state, and still are not a "Constitutional Carry" state. Michigan still requres all handguns to be registered, and requires that a permit to purchase be obtained before a handgun can be acquired.

No, if the people of New Jersey were so outraged at Attorney General Sills, his governor would have been voted out of office, and the successor governor would have reversed the policies.
 
This has passed the house and is going before the state senate. It looks as though it's poised to pass.

I hate living here.

We are obligated to stay for 9 more years. I am counting the days.

C
 
This is a good link if you want to learn about NJ firearms laws. It's a funny video that would be even funnier if it weren't true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fC2iu3CTPc

I don't know if this law is going anywhere. There is no companion bill in the Senate and Senate president Sweeny doesn't seem to have any inclination to push it forward.

Then, Governor has to sign it... and the big guy has his eyes on the White House. I'm not so sure he would sign it.

I'm not saying that we are safe, but there are barriers in place and we should continue the fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top