NJ legislature makes deal - 10 rd limit exchanged for reasonable deviations

[Doc7]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ss...magazine_limit_to_10_rounds.html#incart_river

This is ludicrous. All we can do is pray that if they get passed that the limit gets vetoed. In exchange for being allowed to get gas in my car while driving to range they are going to limit to 10 rounds? This is bad, bad, bad.

 

[627PCFan]

Chipping away....chipping away......

Geez would I prefer to have my 15 round magazine for the safety of my fam, or the abliity to go pick up my buddy Jimbob for a morning duck hunt.

 

[ChaoSS]

" No one needs more than ten rounds ... for defensive purposes." Really? Then why are police always exempt from these laws? Last time I checked they carried guns for defensive purposes, not because we employ judge dredd.


Gun control. The life it saves may just be the one trying to take yours.

 

[Midwest]

People forget what was promised years ago in New Jersey......


" There was a provision that specifically provides that a license was needed to carry a handgun openly or concealed or in a vehicle….shall not apply to members of DCM enrolled clubs in going to or from target practice, provided that a copy of the club charter with the members was filed with the Superintendent of State Police annually.

Those who had a hunting license in going to and from hunting as well as those going to target practice was exempted from the carry law as well (according to the article)."

http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/14/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun/

So they want to make for "reasonable deviations" in exchange for compromising for a 10 rd. limit? Why? So then then they can take them away again? What a joke.


And...what I find most interesting with this absurd proposal is at the same time as this inflammatory article that found it's way to the GOA alerts on Facebook. Seems to me this is a coordinated effort by the anti-gunners. It appears they ordered rabid anti-gunner Brian Miller to make this very inflammatory statement while another sector of the anti-gun community suggests a swap for reasonable deviations for the 10 round mag limit.

http://bearingarms.com/gun-control-...rd-capacity-magazine-is-a-domestic-terrorist/


"“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on preventing gun violence.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Miller said. “We expect the legislative leadership to get behind this and the governor to see some sense.”

And this guy has the nerve to call himself a minister? This is the kind of 'stuff' that New Jersey gun owners have to put up on a daily basis. Fight this proposal with everything you got and good luck!


.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well some of our members have stated in various threads and posts that we should compromise with the gun-grabbers to show that we are... well ... reasonable.

So here we see a perfect example of the gun-grabber's idea of what a fair compromise is. :banghead:

Hopefully anyone who reads this thread won't forget it.

 

[perpster]

"“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on preventing gun violence.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Miller said. “We expect the legislative leadership to get behind this and the governor to see some sense.”

And this guy has the nerve to call himself a minister? This is the kind of 'stuff' that New Jersey gun owners have to put up on a daily basis. Fight this proposal with everything you got and good luck!

Flock him!

 

[Doc7]

I don't think this is actually even a "Deal" or "Compromise" to begin with. The Dems decided to vote on 2 bills, one of which is opposed by gun folks and one of which is supported by them, and call it a "Deal". I don't think there is actually a pro gun voice in this debate that agreed to any sort of terms.

 

[Willie Sutton]

This has nothing to do with gun control.

It's national presidential politics being played out in a small venue in order to provide debate and talking points in two years.

Scenario 1: Christie signs it (not very likely): He is crucified by the RKBA community.

Scenario 2: Christie vetos it (very much more likely): He is then taken to task by the Democratic campaign media ad guys in two years AND they can then leverage the "fact" that he vetoed an "improvement for sporting gun owners rights" to try to leverage out some votes from the (huge) low-information gun owning "sportsmen".


It's all about scoring a few debate points, nothing more.

Frankly, being tuned into NJ politics, there's about zero chance of this being signed into law.


Willie

.

 

[Ryanxia]

Willie, I could be wrong but hasn't Christie signed a bunch of gun control laws already?

 

[Tom609]

This has nothing to do with gun control.

It's national presidential politics being played out in a small venue in order to provide debate and talking points in two years.

Scenario 1: Christie signs it (not very likely): He is crucified by the RKBA community.

Scenario 2: Christie vetos it (very much more likely): He is then taken to task by the Democratic campaign media ad guys in two years AND they can then leverage the "fact" that he vetoed an "improvement for sporting gun owners rights" to try to leverage out some votes from the (huge) low-information gun owning "sportsmen".


It's all about scoring a few debate points, nothing more.

Frankly, being tuned into NJ politics, there's about zero chance of this being signed into law.


Willie

.

I totally agree.

 

[Jeff White]

Last time I checked they carried guns for defensive purposes, not because we employ judge dredd.

Let's put an end to this myth right now. The police do not carry firearms or any other weapon for defensive purposes. Sure they are sometimes used in self defense, but the police are armed so they can enforce compliance with the law.

 

[JRH6856]

the police are armed so they can enforce compliance with the law.

How does that work exactly? Do they point guns (other than radar guns) at speeders and shout "Slow Down! and then shoot them if they don't? :banghead:

 

[Jeff White]

How does that work exactly? Do they point guns (other than radar guns) at speeders and shout "Slow Down! and then shoot them if they don't?

No, but if you look at any department's use of force policy you will find that force is used to stop resistance. Unlike a private citizen who points his weapon only in self defense a police officer points his weapon at people who he doesn't intend to immediately shoot unless there is some resistance. It's SOP to draw and point your weapon at the subject when making many types of felony arrests simply to deter resistance and force compliance with your instructions to surrender.

Use of force starts with officer presence and ends at deadly force with all options in between.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Willie, I could be wrong but hasn't Christie signed a bunch of gun control laws already? "


Not really, none of the ones that were of any substance were signed. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (and I, hjaving been involved with NJ RKBA advocacy for over 30 years)) agree that he's been as pro-2nd as is possible in NJ at present. The opposition strategy seems to be to cobble up packages of bills where they set up legislative scenarios where they can score debate points no matter what he does, and that will split the RKBA's side, particulary among low information gun owners, no matter what he does. They aren't stupid, and they are terrified that he will be the nominee for President. Any points they can debate later are being carefully set up now. That's all you see here.


There is a zero percent chance that he will sign these bills.


Willie

.

 

[Midwest]

What I would like to know is how and where anti-gunner Bryan Miller gathered so much power and influence in New Jersey? He is not even a politician. Why doesn't anyone on the pro-gun side make as much noise as him? How come no one on the pro-gun side ever challenges Miller's position or his outrageous statements?

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,”

He sounds like a relic from Handgun Control circa 1988.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"He sounds like a relic from Handgun Control circa 1988"


He is.

He's got no power other than what the Dems in the legislature give him. There's zero grass roots support ffor him, or his position. The only support he gets is due to the nearly compl;ete lack of interest by the average NJ voter in the subject, and the fact that the Dems in power choose to offer him a platform to speak from, which mirrors mtheir own preconceived notion of the way things ought to be.

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of pro-RKBA citizens in NJ for every dedicated anti.

The problem is that there are thousands of low information "no interest in the subject" citizens for every pro RKBA adviocate in NJ.


Willie

.

 

[JRH6856]

No, but if you look at any department's use of force policy you will find that force is used to stop resistance. Unlike a private citizen who points his weapon only in self defense a police officer points his weapon at people who he doesn't intend to immediately shoot unless there is some resistance. It's SOP to draw and point your weapon at the subject when making many types of felony arrests simply to deter resistance and force compliance with your instructions to surrender.

Use of force starts with officer presence and ends at deadly force with all options in between.

I have read a lot of those policies over the years, (though by no means all) and had them explained to me by both lawyers and police training officers. This is what I took away:

Use of force is not use of deadly force and using a firearm is a use of deadly force (except in some states where the threat of deadly force is considered a use of force but not deadly force).

Police use force to enforce the law, but generally, deadly force may only be used as a last resort to overcome resistance that has escalated to the point of requiring a deadly force response. Resistance at that level may be and usually is threatening to an officer's safety or life, so the use of deadly force in enforcement is essentially in self defense with the additional benefit of reducing the level of resistance to the point where less than deadly force is sufficient for enforcement.

The use of drawn weapons in the case of felony arrests is in anticipation of such high levels of resistance. Arrests can be made and laws can be enforced by unarmed officers (happens in England all the time) but with greater risk to officer safety. One of the primary reasons police officers in the US are armed is to reduce that risk. When any person is armed to reduce the risk or counter the threat of serious injury or death, that is self-defense.

 

[JR47]

Excellent response and instruction. The other definition reads like a tin-foil adherents core belief that anything government is only present to subjugate.

 

[Jeff White]

The use of drawn weapons in the case of felony arrests is in anticipation of such high levels of resistance. Arrests can be made and laws can be enforced by unarmed officers (happens in England all the time) but with greater risk to officer safety. One of the primary reasons police officers in the US are armed is to reduce that risk. When any person is armed to reduce the risk or counter the threat of serious injury or death, that is self-defense.

That is simply I more polite way of saying what I said in my earlier post. It is still coercive use of force intended to make the subject comply with the officer's commands. IT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE! At that point the subject has not attacked the officer.

If you think that constitutes self defense then I suggest the next time someone who makes you feel threatened approaches you on the street, draw down on him and order him to the other side of the street and see if the court rules you acted in self defense.

 

[JRH6856]

That is simply I more polite way of saying what I said in my earlier post. It is still coercive use of force intended to make the subject comply with the officer's commands. IT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE! At that point the subject has not attacked the officer.

If you think that constitutes self defense then I suggest the next time someone who makes you feel threatened approaches you on the street, draw down on him and order him to the other side of the street and see if the court rules you acted in self defense.

If it is another way of saying what you said earlier, it is because in the case of police officers, firearms serve both purposes. To say they serve either purpose does not exclude the other, and I did not attempt to do so.

As to your second suggestion as to what might or might not be self-defense for a civilian (which is really not what we are discussing). I live in Texas, which is a state where by law, the threat of deadly force is not considered use of deadly force. It is simply use of force. And again by law, force may be legitimately used to deter a reasonably perceived threat. Such a use is self-defense. So yes, under certain circumstances in the scenario you propose it is entirely possible that the court could so rule.

 

[vamo]

I think signing this would basically be the nail in the coffin for Christie's presidential aspirations. Might help him the general election, but there's already enough questions about his conservative credentials to give him a tough primary without signing another gun control bill.

 

[medalguy]

Did anyone notice that the bill, as written, calls for a FIVE round limit on mags?

 

[goon]

Did anyone notice that the bill, as written, calls for a FIVE round limit on mags?

I hate to be that guy, but pass it!

The sooner some state gets down to a two-round limit on firearms, the sooner we get the Fudds to realize that they've been fleeced. If the Fudds think limits are reasonable, give them some "reasonable" limits and see how they like the taste of that.

 

[GRIZ22]

Its the shooters in NJ whining for a definition od "reasonable deviation" that gave the Democrats something to "comprimise". NJ law says if you don't have a firearms ID card and want to transport a long gun or any transportation of a handgun must be directly to or from permitted activity with only reasonable deviations. That seems pretty clear to me. Permitted activities are range, to a FFL, hunting, etc. Too many people in NJ have interpreted to mean they can't stop to use the bathroom, get gas, or something to eat or drink. No one in NJ has ever been convicted of violating the law when they stopped to or from a range to partake in one of those activities.

Some shooters in NJ have been whining about this for years. They don't understand what reasonable means. If this goes through and the state defines reasonable it will be worse than it is now.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"NJ law says if you don't have a firearms ID card and want to transport a long gun or any transportation of a handgun must be directly to or from permitted activity with only reasonable deviations."


No, NJ says that if you don't have a FID you can't transport at all.

WITH the card you can transport directly to/from a range, FFL, hunting venue, etc.


Willie

.