New Jersey: Should the rest of the country follow on gun laws?

[Kal'Stang]

Lawmakers just voted to make N.J. gun laws even tougher | NJ.com

I think New Jersey hit it out of the park. All six bills make sense. How armor-piercing bullets are not already illegal is dumbfounding.

The majority of people do not believe in seizing guns from gun owners in general, but people who pose a threat to themselves or others. My, oh my, laws that make sense and reduce gun violence!

From the article:

strictly defining that residents must show a "justifiable need" to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, expanding background checks for private gun sales,

The first one will definitely be shot down as such was essentially already decided in the Heller case.

The second one hasn't been to the courts before so going by the make up of SCOTUS at this time I can only guesstimate that it will be shot down due to Privacy Rights.

include reducing the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from 15 to 10

Not sure how this will be decided but I would hope that it would be shot down as there is no justifiable reason for such an arbitrary number of bullets. In order to restrict Rights there has to be a justifiable and provable reason to do so.

making it easier to seize weapons from people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.

This I support provided it is done in a proper way. Without the details I can't comment further than this.

As for the following:

"There is an entire generation of students who grew up with the ever-present fear of violence in our communities, and now these students are speaking up," Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, D-Camden, said Monday

Not surprised that the "think of the children" ploy was used. Not to mention it being hyperbolic at that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So, you oppose all six laws?

You want armor-piercing bullets legal? Do you want to make the law defenseless against gun owners that go off the deep end?

How many times have such bullets actually been used illegally?

 

[Bucky]

If they are a clear and present danger it is because they have committed an act which proscribes them as such and their behavior can be adjudicated in accordance with the law. Not have their rights violated first and they have to fight to get them back, it presumes guilty until proven innocent, the opposite of our legal system.

Q: When Cruz was threatening to shoot up the high school, should the police have been legally able to take away his guns?

Yes or no answer, please.

 

[Bucky]

How many times have such bullets actually been used illegally?

There` is absolutely zero need for such bullets.

 

[SoulFire77]

Lawmakers just voted to make N.J. gun laws even tougher | NJ.com

I think New Jersey hit it out of the park. All six bills make sense. How armor-piercing bullets are not already illegal is dumbfounding.

The majority of people do not believe in seizing guns from gun owners in general, but people who pose a threat to themselves or others. My, oh my, laws that make sense and reduce gun violence!

And, do these bills also delete from memory the knowledge of how to make armor piercing bullets, or clips that hold as many bullets as one requires???

Perhaps we can develop a sort of "Men in Black" style memory wipe that would solve this hole in gun control theory?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Guns are already powerful. They don't need to be armor-piercing to kill someone.

The need for armor-piercing bullets is rather silly and dangerous.

Do you have any idea what "armor" the law refers to?

https://welikeshooting.com/blog/can-bullet-proof-vests-stop/

 

[Kal'Stang]

There` is absolutely zero need for such bullets.

There is absolutely zero need for you to talk. Yet you have a Right to. Rights are not about "need". Get that through your head.

 

[Bucky]

There is absolutely zero need for you to talk. Yet you have a Right to. Rights are not about "need". Get that through your head.

That's funny. I don't have the right to make threats or use speech to cause riots or someone else to die yet you find it perfectly fine to protect people that may use a weapon to shoot someone in the head.

 

[Bucky]

Justified Need oppose proving NEED to get a permit but would support a training requirement for a CC permit. Not sure what open carry law is there, but no permit for open carry is my view.

You see, the NRA likes to twist things around and makes you think certain people NEED a gun to live or protect themselves from bad guys.

The truth is a gun most likely will do very little in protecting yourself from a bad guy. You really expect an untrained civilian to be able to whip out a gun while being attacked or mugged and shoot with accuracy during an emergency or fight?

That gun most likely will be used against the gun owner.

People are better off with common sense and pepper spray.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Now if we could just make that NO GUN list national, because that last one, "making it easier to seize weapons from people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others" is in point of fact a kind of "NO GUN LIST".
The list should be shared between law enforcement and gun dealers and it should be monitored and continously updated as often as possible.

The only issue I see that poses a problem is the HIPAA specs. Okay, if you want to buy a gun, why not just agree to allow the database access to your HIPAA information? It's only fair, because if you think that checking to see if a medical doctor judged you to be a whack job violates your privacy, you might just be enough of a loon to not be trusted with a gun in the first place.

I know, I know, some are going to say they don't trust doctors. You can't please everyone, I guess.
If you can't trust doctors, lawyers, police, census takers, etc...then why not move someplace where none of those exist, because most modern nations have those people, and civilization demands that we place some trust in them.

Everyone else, if you're not on the list, go buy your guns and enjoy them. If you don't **** up, you won't be on the list and they should leave you alone. I think California went too far on the concealed carry issue, it is now almost impossible to get a CCW here. It sounds like NJ is at least willing to listen to someone show cause.
Maybe it can be the kind of thing where, if the applicant can demonstrate extra responsibility and good standing in the community and with law enforcement PLUS a local gun club, hand over that CCW because they deserve it, at least until they show otherwise.
The 10 round mag limit? Eh...if the person deserves a CCW ticket, then they should probably deserve the right to have a 15 round mag. Extra responsibility, remember?

And make everyone check in with the local dealer or gun club periodically, say once a year or check online to see if their status is still okay. Gun owners are already a community anyway, so I do not see how this should be a problem for anybody.
If you're a good egg, you're a good egg.

And no, legitimate cases of self defense should NEVER EVER be cause to place anyone ON that no gun list, ever.
If it was a legitimate case of self defense, it should never impact their right to have firearms.
Cops might impound or otherwise embargo your guns for a short time pending investigation but they should return them to you as quickly as possible unless something shows a red flag.

I agree with all except that (bolded above) assertion. The opinion of one "expert" is not an acceptable alternative to due process of law to remove one's rights or personal property. You should have the right to face your "accuser" and their evidence and defend yourself with your ultimate fate in the hands of a judge and/or jury of your peers. The nonsense of being declared "likely dangerous" by a police officer (hardly a trained mental health professional) is not reason to allow civil asset forfeiture.

 

[Bucky]

I agree with all except that (bolded above) assertion. The opinion of one "expert" is not an acceptable alternative to due process of law to remove one's rights or personal property. You should have the right to face your "accuser" and their evidence and defend yourself with your ultimate fate in the hands of a judge and/or jury of your peers. The nonsense of being declared "likely dangerous" by a police officer (hardly a trained mental health professional) is not reason to allow civil asset forfeiture.

Like I asked the other poster:

When Cruz was making threats about shooting the high school, should the broward Police have been able to take away Cruz's gun? Yes or no.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Q: When Cruz was threatening to shoot up the high school, should the police have been legally able to take away his guns?

Yes or no answer, please.

There was due cause for arrest and possible court proceedings to do so. Its funny you point to the most egregious failure of law enforcement to act as proof we need even more laws. Should Cruz have been arrested, the court could have ordered a psych evaluation and possibly removed his 2nd amendment rights...through due process.

The better question is why wasn't Cruz arrested when he threatened to shoot up a high school?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I want them to engage in due process and take guns away through the courts, not through an expedited process that has a sole determinant.

We could have a "gun court", I think that's an excellent idea.
We already have a drug court, after all.
So okay, each major area would have a handful of "gun courts" or gun magistrates that fulfill that function.
They could run through the docket twice a month, or more often in the larger cities, would that work?

As for "expedited" process, parts of the process SHOULD be expedited, like say perhaps being able to check and see if your case was determined to lack enough merit to TAKE the guns in the first place.
Joe Six Pack checks online, sees that the gun court made a determination that he should get his guns back, and the website directs him to the agency or police dept that embargoed them, he goes down and gets them back, without having to make a second trip to the court.

Selling at fair market value? Yeah, that is a fair idea because after all, you're taking away the guns, not the MONEY USED to purchase them. Let Joe Nutcase get return on his value, that's only fair.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's funny. I don't have the right to make threats or use speech to cause riots or someone else to die yet you find it perfectly fine to protect people that may use a weapon to shoot someone in the head.

Where have I done this? Oh right, I haven't. Stop with the hyperbolic strawmen. It doesn't do you any good. I fully support laws that make it illegal for anyone to shoot anyone else in the head.

 

[Bucky]

There was due cause for arrest and possible court proceedings to do so. Its funny you point to the most egregious failure of law enforcement to act as proof we need even more laws. Should Cruz have been arrested, the court could have ordered a psych evaluation and possibly removed his 2nd amendment rights...through due process.

The better question is why wasn't Cruz arrested when he threatened to shoot up a high school?

I asked a question and you refused to answer.

The basis of your post is this: Even if someone is making a threat to commit a mass shooting, the police should not take the most important step in stopping him.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Q: When Cruz was threatening to shoot up the high school, should the police have been legally able to take away his guns?

Yes or no answer, please.

No, but they should have been able to take away Cruz for a Baker Act evaluation. Why does it make sense to take someone's guns (obviously, only the one's that are known about and can be found) away and let them go free if you really think that they are dangerous and likely to commit mass murder?

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's funny. I don't have the right to make threats or use speech to cause riots or someone else to die yet you find it perfectly fine to protect people that may use a weapon to shoot someone in the head.

There are laws against those things---you are free to do as you chose so long as you do not inflict harm on another. Making a threat is battery, causing riots is inciting violence; why don't you understand that Cruz should have been arrested? He threatened harm. That's illegal.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Like I asked the other poster:

When Cruz was making threats about shooting the high school, should the broward Police have been able to take away Cruz's gun? Yes or no.

No - they should have taken away Cruz.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I asked a question and you refused to answer.

The basis of your post is this: Even if someone is making a threat to commit a mass shooting, the police should not take the most important step in stopping him.

No. The basis of my post is he broke the law with the threat, arrest him and then determine if he is a danger and evaluate him psychologically under a LEGAL court mandated process. If found incompetent, remove his rights, if found unstable, commit him.

Law enforcement failed step one, why abuse everyone else when they failed step one? What makes you think they will become competent if a different step one is used?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Of course, I've always thought that the same should apply to motor vehicles which were impounded and then auctioned off as well. If you get your car impounded and it's only for a short amount of time, and they auctioned it off, you should get a share.
Impounding guns is not nearly as expensive as impounding cars, so the process should not include exorbitant fees designed to separate you from your money.

You might have to pay a small fee for storage, but it shouldn't be a ridiculous fee.
I've seen auto impounds where a 30-day impound was a thousand bucks, outrageous, and I daresay that is something that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. That is straight up asset forfeiture.

 

[OpportunityCost]

We could have a "gun court", I think that's an excellent idea.
We already have a drug court, after all.
So okay, each major area would have a handful of "gun courts" or gun magistrates that fulfill that function.
They could run through the docket twice a month, or more often in the larger cities, would that work?

As for "expedited" process, parts of the process SHOULD be expedited, like say perhaps being able to check and see if your case was determined to lack enough merit to TAKE the guns in the first place.
Joe Six Pack checks online, sees that the gun court made a determination that he should get his guns back, and the website directs him to the agency or police dept that embargoed them, he goes down and gets them back, without having to make a second trip to the court.

Selling at fair market value? Yeah, that is a fair idea because after all, you're taking away the guns, not the MONEY USED to purchase them. Let Joe Nutcase get return on his value, that's only fair.

Lets then have a speech court and a religious court and a due process court and everything will be hunky dory as Orwell spins in his grave.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I agree with all except that (bolded above) assertion. The opinion of one "expert" is not an acceptable alternative to due process of law to remove one's rights or personal property. You should have the right to face your "accuser" and their evidence and defend yourself with your ultimate fate in the hands of a judge and/or jury of your peers. The nonsense of being declared "likely dangerous" by a police officer (hardly a trained mental health professional) is not reason to allow civil asset forfeiture.

Okay okay, see my post about "gun courts".

 

[Bullseye]

Notice, New Jersey already had tough gun laws under Chris Christie.

The justifiable needs part won't hurt law-abiding gun owners.

Any time you have to justify your exercise of a constitutional right there is a problem. Magazine size is a LW 'feel good" measure.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I asked a question and you refused to answer.

The basis of your post is this: Even if someone is making a threat to commit a mass shooting, the police should not take the most important step in stopping him.

The most important step is removing the potential shooter - arrest and lock up Cruz. Let's say I threaten to bash your head in with the rock in my hand and you call the police - should the cop just take away my rock and leave?

 

[SoulFire77]

The most important step is removing the potential shooter - arrest and lock up Cruz. Let's say I threaten to bash your head in with the rock in my hand and you call the police - should the cop just take away my rock and leave?

Rocks don't kill people... People kill people.