Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NJ Gun Control Legislation; Coming Soon to a State Near You?

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
February 19, 2013 1:20:43 PM

Below is a link to the NJ Second Amendment Society website which provide a list of the latest 40+ gun control proposals.

2013 New Jersey Firearms Legislation

Regardless of where you stand on gun control, pro or con, I urge you to read the proposals with an open mind and ask yourself if implemented, would they have stopped massacres like in Newtown from happening. For example;
  • A3667 Requires mental health screening by licensed professional to purchase a firearm. How could that be bad, isn't that what people want, to stop the mentally ill from obtaining firearms? Yes, it is. But ask yourself, is anyone required to obtain a Public Speaking Certificate before exercising their 1st Amendment Right to free speech? Are you willing to allow qualifiers determine which Constitutional rights you can or can not freely exercise? This proposal also disregards the fact that anyone applying for a Firearms ID Card or wanting to purchase a handgun is already subject to a mental health background check.
  • A3676 requires an in-home inspection and mental evaluation for anyone who wishes to purchase a handgun. Why does the State or Local Police need to visit my home for in order for me to purchase a handgun? What criteria would be used to determine if a person "was acceptable" to purchase a hand gun? This also ignores existing State law where would-be gun buyers are subject to a Mental Health background check to determine if you have a history of mental health issues or if you have ever been institutionalized due to mental health issues.
  • A3748 Requires background check for private gun sales. Sounds reasonable enough, right? But it ignores existing State law that requires all private gun sales be conducted by a licensed firearms dealer and in order to buy through an FFL you are subject to the National Instant Criminal background check System (NICS). In other words, selling a gun privately without going through an FFL makes the sale and the purchase illegal and all parties involved criminals.
  • S2471 Prohibits investment by State of pension and annuity funds in companies manufacturing, importing, and selling assault firearms for civilian use. What the heck does where the pension fund invests it's monies have to do with public safety and stopping gun violence?! This is the epitome of legislation that is NOT in the public interest but squarely AIMED to disenfranchise an industry simply because of the products they make.
  • A3659 Revises definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater. This is directly aimed at the .50 caliber sniper rifles used by the military. However, there has never been an instance in New Jersey where a .50 caliber sniper rifle was ever used to commit a crime. Also, the way the verbiage is written it would also ban rifle barreled shotguns (slug guns) over 20ga and certain handguns. This disregards existing law that allows only shotguns for hunting, no rifles are allowed for hunting in New Jersey. So, the legally allowed 12ga slug gun used today for hunting in New jersey would be illegal if this proposal passed.

    Out of the 40+ proposals, 24 passed committee on 2/13/2013 and will be voted on by the full Legislature on 2/21/2013. Over 500 people showed to oppose these proposals with only 200 being able to fit inside the State House Committee hearing rooms. I was one of the 300 who stood outside the State House to exercise my 1st Amendment and support my 2nd Amendment rights. The opposition to these proposals was overwhelming to the point where the Committee subjected those who opposed the legislation to 2 minute time limit but allowed anyone who was in favor an unlimited amount of time. The Committee started out by hearing arguments from both sides before voting, but as more people stood up to oppose, the Committee suspended public comment so they could get through the votes. At the end of the day, a large and vocal public opposing the proposals was pushed aside in favor or political expediency; as a spokesperson for the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs stated, "This is a kangaroo court and the Committee has proven they do not want to hear the voice of the People."

    Hopefully, the above examples show that the recent push for gun control at the Federal and State level has little to do with "saving the life of just one person" and has more to do with soft tyranny and slowly but surely passing laws that strip the people of the Constitutional rights.
    February 19, 2013 2:28:42 PM

    Meh the only one I really disagree with is A3676. Im not too keen on the gov being in my bedroom for any reason.

    The others seem fine to me.

    You dont need a .50 caliber round, Im all down for mental health screening as long as nothing is duplicated (If a health screen for the feds and a health screen for the state could be combined Im down).

    Close the private sale loophole. Im not sure where you copy pastes this info from but your link doesnt include any additional info about this one. I can only assume that this is in relation to being able to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check, regardless of whether or not the seller is FFL certified.

    S2471 - Im also willing to bet NJ doesnt let their pensions be invested in Porno.... Even though its completely legal.
    February 19, 2013 3:34:18 PM

    wanamingo said:
    Meh the only one I really disagree with is A3676. Im not too keen on the gov being in my bedroom for any reason.
    I hope you are against it because you believe in ALL privacy rights, not just those sexually related.

    wanamingo said:
    The others seem fine to me.
    I just keep thinking of the Parable of the Boiled Frog.

    How's the water?

    February 19, 2013 4:39:09 PM

    chunkymonster said:
    I hope you are against it because you believe in ALL privacy rights, not just those sexually related.


    What happens between me and my assault rifle in the confines of my room is my business. I assume that most guns are stored in the bedroom, under the pillow, under the mattress, inside the mattress, gun closet laid down next to me so I can hold it while I sleep.....

    They can stay out of pantry also, this also includes the dungeon.

    chunkymonster said:

    I just keep thinking of the Parable of the Boiled Frog.

    How's the water?


    Isn't that one of Gore's favorites?

    You say tyranny I say common sense.

    I would also like to point out that non of these are laws... yet. Most of the crazier ones (Gov house inspections, which again, was sponsored by one assembly woman) are small politicians trying to make a name for themselves. I would be curious to have the outcome reported here, you know... once they are laws not just pieces of paper.

    Have you ever heard the parable of the boy who cried wolf?

    Hows the flock?
    February 19, 2013 5:39:56 PM

    wanamingo said:
    You say tyranny I say common sense.
    Common sense?! Are you friggin' kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    wanamingo said:
    I would also like to point out that non of these are laws... yet. Most of the crazier ones (Gov house inspections, which again, was sponsored by one assembly woman) are small politicians trying to make a name for themselves. I would be curious to have the outcome reported here, you know... once they are laws not just pieces of paper.

    Have you ever heard the parable of the boy who cried wolf?

    Hows the flock?
    I should be asking you how the flock is...it's this same apathy that allowed the State of New York to pass their recent slew of anti-gun laws.

    Boy who cried wolf. Hahaha! That's funny! But who cares, right mingo? Who gives a flying flip since guns are not your issue. It's okay for the government to do whatever they want to anyone else as long as mingo can slip his wang-dangle into who and what whenever he wants; just remember to keep it in the bedroom.








    February 19, 2013 6:01:00 PM

    How crazy of an idea to have a person who is BUYING a gun at a GUN SHOW to not be insane?!?!?! I find it a common sense law that says crazy people cant own a gun, I also find it common sense to not be able to own a 50 cal.


    I dont agree with some of those (You link was kinda crap for a few of them) like the gov in the inspecting your house.... (Anecdotally its really hard in NH to be able to bake goods in your home for sale, the requirements are ridiculous).

    But! Lets not forget about perspective, you have a bunch of very low level politicians sponsoring this crap, so save the outrage for something worth posting about (then you can whine like a small child when someone has a dissenting opinion from yours).


    If you dont like people disagreeing with you Im sure there is some Glenn Beck forums you can troll.

    I also fail to see what I said that would warrant a response like that.... My wang-dangle never hurt you.....
    February 19, 2013 6:25:09 PM

    wanamingo said:
    How crazy of an idea to have a person who is BUYING a gun at a GUN SHOW to not be insane?!?!?! I find it a common sense law that says crazy people cant own a gun, I also find it common sense to not be able to own a 50 cal.

    I dont agree with some of those (You link was kinda crap for a few of them) like the gov in the inspecting your house.... (Anecdotally its really hard in NH to be able to bake goods in your home for sale, the requirements are ridiculous).

    But! Lets not forget about perspective, you have a bunch of very low level politicians sponsoring this crap, so save the outrage for something worth posting about (then you can whine like a small child when someone has a dissenting opinion from yours).

    If you dont like people disagreeing with you Im sure there is some Glenn Beck forums you can troll.

    I also fail to see what I said that would warrant a response like that.... My wang-dangle never hurt you.....
    I can not afford to take the attitude that these are "low level politicians" looking to make a name for themselves. I am sure the people of New York thought the same way you do...

    I am all for people disagreeing but take issue when that disagreement is dismissive and apathetic.

    Your wang-dangle has never hurt me, but then again, my 20ga shotgun has never hurt you. The difference is my 20ga shotgun will illegal if the .50 caliber proposal passes and your wang-dangle will still be free to poke at what and who whenever you want.
    February 19, 2013 6:31:05 PM

    (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater [than 60 caliber], except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes.

    From your link.

    Really takes the bite out when you read it, eh?
    February 19, 2013 6:56:30 PM

    Its always a few teachers, a few schools, a few pols,

    Just like the lack of certain peoples misunderstanding of the economy, its like
    Everett Dirkson said
    A billion here, abillion there, and pretty soon youre talking real money.
    February 19, 2013 9:11:33 PM

    Geez, that's a bunch of awful legislation.

    1. A3667- this is probably the worst of the lot. No doc is going to want to touch that with a 39 1/2 foot pole. I can see it already- if anybody who you see once for a "gun screening exam" and pass 10 years later does something you WILL be held liable. I want to bet that docs probably won't be able to refuse to see patients for these exams either.

    2. A3676- let's absolutely shred the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment with random searches of private residences with absolutely no probable cause to harass gun owners. Let me guess they'll be no-knock, bash in the door and throw in a flash-bang at 0230 searches conducted by paramilitary SWAT teams carrying weapons civilians can't possess.

    3. A3748- leads to a gun registry to allow the paramilitary government thugs in A3676 to seize weapons in the future. Bank on it, it's happened in other countries such as England and Australia. Expect crime to increase if anything as the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen/smuggled, not legally purchased and registered.

    4. S2471- has the state economically punish things its politicians doesn't like. That will never, ever be abused by any corrupt politician...

    5. A3659- essentially a duplicate of most of the existing federal regs plus some California-esque "ooh big super-expensive scary-looking gun that about four people even have- we must ban it!" Still idiotic but pales in comparison to the rest of the proposals.
    February 19, 2013 10:57:56 PM

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    What is the difference between a black powder rifle and a shotgun?

    I await your answer with baited breath. Inform yourself first. Just a suggestion though.


    Short answer: A black powder rifle has a rifled barrel and shoots a single projectile of generally fairly large diameter driven at low speeds by black powder. Most black powder rifles are single shot and load from the muzzle. A shotgun is a weapon originally designed to shoot multiple shot pellets at one firing from a smooth barrel. Most shotguns are repeating weapons using smokeless powder.

    Long answer: There are many different kinds of black powder rifles, ranging from muzzle-loading rifles to metallic cartridge repeating rifles like the .45-70 lever action. There are also many different kinds of shotguns and recently there have been rifled barrels fitted to shotguns to allow for more accurate shooting of single projectiles (slugs). This is mainly due to legislation banning rifles for big-game hunting. In practice there isn't much of a difference between a larger black-powder cartridge repeating rifle like a .45-70/.45-90/.50-90 and a modern slug shotgun. Both shoot .45-50 caliber projectiles weighing 250-500 grains at a speed of 1300-1800 fps and can be reloaded and fired >10 times per minute. They all make effective weapons on big game up to about the size of an elk as long as you keep ranges to about 100-150 yards or so.

    The legal distinction is that shotguns are originally designed to shoot shot from smooth barrels and are exempt from the Destructive Device clause of the 1932 NFA. This is because a .50 caliber shotgun is somewhere between a 28 gauge and a .410 bore (the two smallest commonly available shotguns) and not very useful- most shotguns are approximately .62 caliber (20 gauge) or .73 caliber (12 gauge.) Shotguns are also low-pressure firearms and not able to throw a large single projectile very far so are not thought to be a threat to the government such as a .50 caliber centerfire rifle like a .50 BMG would be. Thus the later modifications to allow rifled barrels and saboted projectiles from any weapon than chambers a shotgun shell was given an exemption to the NFA by BATFE.

    The legal distinctions also allow any weapon made before 1898 to be exempt from the NFA regs and also any muzzle-loading weapon as well, regardless of date of manufacture. You can own a 6" bore muzzleloading cannon if you wish. You can also own a breech-loading 3" mortar such as a Hotchkiss Mountain Gun but only if it were made before 1898. (One such weapon was offered for sale on Pawn Stars for $40,000 a couple years ago.) 1899 and newer models are illegal without the NFA stamp and all of the paperwork that goes into them as they are defined as Destructive Devices.
    February 19, 2013 11:52:37 PM

    wanamingo said:
    (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater [than 60 caliber], except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes.

    From your link.

    Really takes the bite out when you read it, eh?
    Doesn't take the bite out of anything, it just shows your lack of firearms knowledge.

    Shotguns come with both a smooth and rifled barrel. To distinguish the two in conversation, the rifled barrel shotgun is sometimes referred to as a slug gun. The term slug is used because instead of the typical shot shell containing multiple pellets, it holds a single solid projectile.

    The current law in New Jersey clearly defines shotgun as having a "smooth bore" and a rifle as having a "rifled bore". The proposal redefines "destructive devices" to include anything over .50 caliber. The 20ga measures out to be .62 caliber. So, because the definition of shotgun as having only a smooth bore, plus the change in definition of destructive devices to include anything over .50 caliber, New Jersey Legislators and the proposal will not/do not make a distinction between a 20ga rifled shotgun and a molotov cocktail as a destructive device.

    And you thought you were pointing out my ignorance of the laws being proposed. Silly mingo, tricks are for kids.
    February 20, 2013 4:18:53 AM

    Yea, those ram rods are less dangerous than a baseball bat
    February 20, 2013 10:44:33 AM

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Shorter answer. There is no real difference. Black powder rifles come in smooth bore just like shotguns.

    Sorry to not use so many words.


    Black powder rifles do not come with smooth bores because no rifle has a smooth bore. A smoothbore muzzle-loading black powder weapon designed to shoot a single projectile is more accurately called a musket. A musket and a muzzle-loading shotgun are functionally identical as both have smooth bores and can shoot shot loads or single projectiles. Sorry to be pedantic but there is a ton of pedantry and hair-splitting with firearms terminology, especially now that the BATFE got involved. The original topic of discussion exemplifies this very well, with rifled-barreled "shotguns" not being classified as destructive devices while a .54-caliber black-powder cartridge rifle would be classified as one.
    February 20, 2013 12:08:26 PM

    According to Jersey - “Shotgun” means any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shots or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, or any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder which does not fire fixed ammunition.

    The good news is OMG is safe with his black powder muskets (They dont call him a minute man for nothing).

    Quote:
    Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection, the term shall not include any of the following weapons capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, but not exceeding a caliber of 60: antique firearm; antique handgun; muzzleloader rifle; or black powder muzzleloader having in-line ignition, a center hammer or an under hammer which has been, or subsequently is, approved for hunting in this State. The term also shall not include any firearm with a bore diameter greater than 60 caliber whose principle means of ignition are traditional flintlock or caplock and whose principle propellant is black powder.

    Destructive Device - Any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater [than 60 caliber], except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes;


    I still fail to see why banning .62 caliber slugs is a bad thing.... Maybe someone can tell me what you use them for? Self defense, or just because?
    February 20, 2013 12:46:22 PM

    Wouldnt game hunting fall under a sporting round? Im having difficulties finding a definition for what exactly a "Sporting Round" is, maybe its purposely vague to leave wiggle room for hunters?

    Also from the way the law is written shotguns might be exempt from the gauge size laws.
    February 20, 2013 12:53:38 PM

    wanamingo said:
    According to Jersey - “Shotgun” means any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shots or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, or any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder which does not fire fixed ammunition.

    The good news is OMG is safe with his black powder muskets (They dont call him a minute man for nothing).

    Quote:
    Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection, the term shall not include any of the following weapons capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, but not exceeding a caliber of 60: antique firearm; antique handgun; muzzleloader rifle; or black powder muzzleloader having in-line ignition, a center hammer or an under hammer which has been, or subsequently is, approved for hunting in this State. The term also shall not include any firearm with a bore diameter greater than 60 caliber whose principle means of ignition are traditional flintlock or caplock and whose principle propellant is black powder.

    Destructive Device - Any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater [than 60 caliber], except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes;


    I still fail to see why banning .62 caliber slugs is a bad thing.... Maybe someone can tell me what you use them for? Self defense, or just because?


    A .62 caliber slug would be a 20-gauge full-bore-diameter slug such as a Foster-type "rifled" slug or an attached wad (Brenneke or Lightfield type) slug. You would use one for deer hunting with a smoothbore 20-gauge shotgun if you had absolutely nothing better to use as it is a low-power, short-range load.

    As to the why does the slug need to be >.60 caliber, shotguns are very low-pressure firearms, roughly on par with black powder firearms with a maximum pressure of 12-15k PSI. A typical handgun round will be about 20k PSI, magnum handgun rounds are around 30-40k PSI, and common centerfire rifle rounds are usually 55-65k PSI. Shotguns absolutely depend on a large piston surface to generate enough energy to be useful for hunting and shooting due to Pascal's Law. A 20-gauge slug despite its large diameter is fairly marginal for deer hunting and roughly equal in power and performance to a .50 caliber blackpowder rifle using 1850s Minie balls and <100 grain powder charges or a .44 magnum handgun round shot from a carbine. 20 gauge slugs are the bare legal minimum for deer hunting in most areas. Most people use even larger 12-gauge slugs which are about in line with a typical newer in-line muzzle-loading blackpowder rifle in terms of range or performance. The slugs are huge but not particularly powerful and don't kill a deer any deader or much if any quicker than a "low-powered" deer rifle such as a .30-30 or a .260 Remington.
    February 20, 2013 3:07:39 PM

    wanamingo said:
    I still fail to see why banning .62 caliber slugs is a bad thing.... Maybe someone can tell me what you use them for? Self defense, or just because?
    Well, I'm glad that you finally understand the proposal would ban a rifled shotgun. A rifled shotgun, up until this proposal, has maintained a legitimate sporting and hunting purpose.

    Heavily populated States, like NJ, do no permit rifles for hunting due to the increased pressure of the round and the distance a rifle round can travel; for example, the .30-06 has an effective range of 600 yards. Whereas the shotgun fires a low pressure round and has a maximum effective range of 100-150 yards.

    Without going into too much detail, after the shot shell is fired, the pellets form a rough "O" shape changing in diameter and losing velocity as the pellets fly down range. Shooting large game at a range of 100 yards or more, the pattern of the pellets may not be dense enough to kill the game with a single shot.

    A rifled shotgun firing a single solid projectile is still a low pressure shell but comes with a minimal increase in maximum effective to 150 yds. The primary trade off between a shotgun shooting a mass of pellets compared to a sabot slug isn't the meager increase in range, but the significant increase in energy transferred to the target as a result of a large single projectile. A rifled shotgun is also made to accept telescopic sights increasing accuracy.

    One objective (at least, on of my objectives) of hunting is to kill the game with one shot. The more accurate the weapon, the easier it is for the hunter to maintain point of impact, the more success a single shot will result in a kill. With this in mind, the rifled shotgun is a far more accurate and effective firearm when compared to smooth bore shotguns when hunting large game.

    wanamingo said:
    Wouldnt game hunting fall under a sporting round? Im having difficulties finding a definition for what exactly a "Sporting Round" is, maybe its purposely vague to leave wiggle room for hunters?

    Also from the way the law is written shotguns might be exempt from the gauge size laws.
    You will never find a definition for "sporting rounds". For the law to accurately define "sporting ammunition" the law would need to classify all ammunition by assigning arbitrary uses based on the caliber or gauge. But, that level of granularity ignores the basic fact that "sporting ammunition" is any ammunition that is being used for sporting purposes. Is the government then going to define what is and is not lawful sporting purposes? In which case, maybe skeet shooting would be legitimate, but what about high-power rifle competitions? Along with the same line of thinking, you will never find an accurate definition of a "sporting firearm" which is why all the "assault weapon bans" focus on the cosmetic features of the firearm, i.e.; pistol grips, bayonet lugs, detachable magazines, etc. All of which just goes to show how arbitrary and subjective these gun bans and anti-gun proposals really are.
    February 20, 2013 4:39:31 PM

    Quote:
    "Destructive device" means any device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontrolled combustion, including (1) any explosive or incendiary bomb, mine or grenade; (2) any rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or any missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter of an ounce; (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes; (4) any Molotov cocktail or other device consisting of a breakable container containing flammable liquid and having a wick or similar device capable of being ignited. The term [does] shall not include any device manufactured for the purpose of illumination, distress signaling, line-throwing, safety or similar purposes. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection, the term shall not include any of the following weapons capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, but not exceeding a caliber of 60: antique firearm; antique handgun; muzzleloader rifle; or black powder muzzleloader having in-line ignition, a center hammer or an under hammer which has been, or subsequently is, approved for hunting in this State. The term also shall not include any firearm with a bore diameter greater than 60 caliber whose principle means of ignition are traditional flintlock or caplock and whose principle propellant is black powder.


    So what exactly do you think they mean by (Im going to paraphrase here) You cant own a weapon that fires a .50 caliber round EXCEPT for SHOTGUNS? Do you think that.... maybe they put an exception in for shotguns? So you can still go dear hunt using that .62 round. So im not sure what you are arguing for? Do you hunt with a .50 caliber rifle? And just pick the pieces up after, Im willing to bet the force of the round would cook a piece here and there.

    I dont know how else to phrase this besides in the link you gave it literally says shotguns are exempt.

    So what say you MU can I kill a deer with anything besides a .62 caliber shotgun slug? Before shotguns people must have never caught anything......
    February 20, 2013 5:32:01 PM

    wanamingo said:
    Quote:
    "Destructive device" means any device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontrolled combustion, including (1) any explosive or incendiary bomb, mine or grenade; (2) any rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or any missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter of an ounce; (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes; (4) any Molotov cocktail or other device consisting of a breakable container containing flammable liquid and having a wick or similar device capable of being ignited. The term [does] shall not include any device manufactured for the purpose of illumination, distress signaling, line-throwing, safety or similar purposes. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection, the term shall not include any of the following weapons capable of firing a projectile of a caliber of 50 or greater, but not exceeding a caliber of 60: antique firearm; antique handgun; muzzleloader rifle; or black powder muzzleloader having in-line ignition, a center hammer or an under hammer which has been, or subsequently is, approved for hunting in this State. The term also shall not include any firearm with a bore diameter greater than 60 caliber whose principle means of ignition are traditional flintlock or caplock and whose principle propellant is black powder.


    So what exactly do you think they mean by (Im going to paraphrase here) You cant own a weapon that fires a .50 caliber round EXCEPT for SHOTGUNS? Do you think that.... maybe they put an exception in for shotguns? So you can still go dear hunt using that .62 round. So im not sure what you are arguing for? Do you hunt with a .50 caliber rifle? And just pick the pieces up after, Im willing to bet the force of the round would cook a piece here and there.

    I dont know how else to phrase this besides in the link you gave it literally says shotguns are exempt.

    So what say you MU can I kill a deer with anything besides a .62 caliber shotgun slug? Before shotguns people must have never caught anything......
    The NJ definition of a shotgun specifies a weapon with a "smooth bore". By definition, the above exemption is intended to mean ONLY SMOOTH BORE shotguns.

    I do not think they made any exceptions for other than what is already defined within existing New Jersey law. Nor do I presume to think that NJ Legislators understand the difference between a smooth bore shotgun and a rifled bore shotgun. I also do not think they understand a rifled shotgun is "suitable" for sporting purposes given there was nothing in the proposal to redefine a shotgun to include a rifled bore.

    The redefinition of destructive devices to include weapons capable of firing .50 caliber or greater does not exempt RIFLED shotguns as you would like to believe based on the above destructive device clause and the existing legal definition of a shotgun.

    If verbiage had been included to redefine shotguns to include rifled bores, I would agree with your argument. However, there is no such verbiage stating that rifled shotguns are suitable for sporting purposes and no such verbiage is being included to exempt rifled shotguns. So, by using the existing definitions and proposed verbiage, it is reasonable and logical to conclude that rifled shotguns over .50 caliber will be classified as a destructive device.

    When, if, and until the verbiage specifies rifled shotguns as being exempt, or verbiage classifying rifled shotguns as "suitable for sporting purposes", or the definition of shotgun is revised to include rifled bore, there is no further point in continuing this discussion.
    February 20, 2013 11:49:24 PM

    wanamingo said:


    So what exactly do you think they mean by (Im going to paraphrase here) You cant own a weapon that fires a .50 caliber round EXCEPT for SHOTGUNS? Do you think that.... maybe they put an exception in for shotguns? So you can still go dear hunt using that .62 round. So im not sure what you are arguing for? Do you hunt with a .50 caliber rifle? And just pick the pieces up after, Im willing to bet the force of the round would cook a piece here and there.


    The reason we are against the restriction on .50+ caliber rifles is part based on practicality and part on principle. The practicality part is because there are more than one .50 caliber rifle. You are thinking that any .50 caliber centerfire rifle is a .50 BMG. The .50 BMG is probably only appropriate for hunting the very largest dangerous game in Africa from long distances. However it's not inappproriate for sporting use. It is an excellent very long-range target round. You have guys who enjoy shooting half-court shots in basketball (not practical but fun) instead of free throws or 3-pointers, you have guys who like to shoot 1000 yards instead of 100 or 300 yards. A Big Fifty is going to do a whole lot better at hitting a target at 1000 yards than a .308 or .223. Getting back on topic, there are many other .50 caliber centerfire rifles. Most are low-powered numbers based off of converted black powder cartridges like the .50-90 Sharps or very large handgun cartridges adapted for rifles such as the .500 S&W. They are very reasonable to use on deer as they are roughly as powerful as a muzzle-loading rifle. A .54 caliber version of the latter rounds isn't going to be all that much more powerful and there is no reason to ban it. Also, we stand on principle that the government has shredded the Constitution for its own nefarious ends and seek to stop it from further shredding the Constitution whenever possible.
    February 21, 2013 12:09:48 AM

    Well, the thinking big is bad is easy to understand, if youre coming from a "we dont really approve" attitude, and simply not knowing what theyre talking about hasnt stopped governments before, especially if it gets them attention, and (read my sig) makes them appear to care.
    I would rather say, throw the bums out, whether because of their deception, or ignorance.
    If, on the other hand, there were reasonable reasons, then I have ears, but this?
    Ludicrous
    February 24, 2013 1:00:28 PM

    chunky, max effective range is not the problem. Max effective range of the 30-06 is about a 1000 yards in the hands of a competent rifleman. Max range is several miles when fired at a 45 degree angle.

    Hey, wanamingo. If the purpose of gun control is to reduce crime, tell me how many times a .50 cal BMG rifle has been used to commit a crime. For that matter, considering that the category of weapons loosely (and inaccurately) defined as "assault weapons" have been banned based on appearance, tell me how many robberies, muggings, and deaths have been done with fixed bayonets.

    If gun control equals crime control, why are the death rates due to guns so high in areas with very strict gun laws. Chicago, New York City, and Washington, DC come to mind.

    Ever notice that most of the public figures pushing gun control have armed security? Who finds that hypocritical?

    "Gun free zone" = "target rich environment".

    And you do not really need a .50 cal rifle for long distance shooting:
    http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/05/best-wallet...

    For those of you who are metrically challenged, 6.5 mm = .243 cal.

    February 24, 2013 7:41:46 PM

    jsc said:

    And you do not really need a .50 cal rifle for long distance shooting:
    http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/05/best-wallet...

    For those of you who are metrically challenged, 6.5 mm = .243 cal.


    Nope. 6 mm = .243. 6.5 mm = .264. There are some famous 6 mm long-range rounds like the 6 mm PPC but the 6.5 rounds, especially that 6.5-284, owns the small-bore long-range shooting world right now.
    February 25, 2013 1:05:03 PM

    LEGISLATION UPDATE!

    The 22 gun control proposals passed the New Jersey Assembly on 2/21/2013. The next step is move these proposals to the NJ Senate in which they will also face committee hearings and the eventual State Senate vote. While some local media and pro-gun advocates believe these bills have a long uphill battle and will most likely be defeated in the Senate, I just want to remind them that the NJ Senate is Democrat controlled 24 to 16. The Senate Committee hearing and vote is tentatively scheduled for March/April.

    N.J. Assembly passes package of gun bills despite Republicans' protest

    Here's the flip side argument for these gun control proposals. You know, to be fair and balanced...
    N.J. Assembly gun control bills would save lives: Editorial

    I really don't care if guns are not your issue and you don't care if all firearms are banned but do not be so ignorant to recognize the commonality and effect that anti-gun laws have on our privacy rights and personal freedoms. If you believe in maintaining your privacy, believe in individual liberty, believe that government should not limit the marketplace, and believe in the principle that the best form of government is a government that leaves it to the people to decide what is best for themselves, then you owe it to yourself and future generations to oppose anti-gun laws at both the Federal and State levels.
    February 26, 2013 12:46:02 AM

    chunkymonster said:
    LEGISLATION UPDATE!

    The 22 gun control proposals passed the New Jersey Assembly on 2/21/2013. The next step is move these proposals to the NJ Senate in which they will also face committee hearings and the eventual State Senate vote. While some local media and pro-gun advocates believe these bills have a long uphill battle and will most likely be defeated in the Senate, I just want to remind them that the NJ Senate is Democrat controlled 24 to 16. The Senate Committee hearing and vote is tentatively scheduled for March/April.

    N.J. Assembly passes package of gun bills despite Republicans' protest

    Here's the flip side argument for these gun control proposals. You know, to be fair and balanced...
    N.J. Assembly gun control bills would save lives: Editorial

    I really don't care if guns are not your issue and you don't care if all firearms are banned but do not be so ignorant to recognize the commonality and effect that anti-gun laws have on our privacy rights and personal freedoms. If you believe in maintaining your privacy, believe in individual liberty, believe that government should not limit the marketplace, and believe in the principle that the best form of government is a government that leaves it to the people to decide what is best for themselves, then you owe it to yourself and future generations to oppose anti-gun laws at both the Federal and State levels.
    How many more do you want to see killed with these dam guns being used. It will never stop if no control will be used with this by the government.
    February 26, 2013 8:48:37 AM

    MU, you are right. The dreaded math bug bit me in the butt. I guess after more than 30 years in Europe and the Middle East, I still am metrically challenged. :) 

    marv, every mass shooting we have had recently was already illegal by existing laws. How many more laws do you want to pass for criminals to ignore? That's why we call them criminals.

    All these new laws accomplish is to criminalize the behavior of formerly law abiding citizens.

    Compare the death rates of Chicago (lots of restrictive gun laws) to Vermont (extremely liberal CC laws). Any non-felon Vermont citizen over 21 can carry concealed. He (or she) doesn't need a training class or any kind of permit. Lots of blood in the streets of Vermont, isn't there?
    February 26, 2013 12:39:55 PM

    jsc, there are very few folks in the U.S. that would know off the top of their heads the inch diameter of a 6.5 mm rifle, and they are all "rifle loonies." (Guilty.) 6.5 mm rifles haven't caught on in the U.S. except in benchrest shooting which is a definite niche. Most metric-caliber cartridges designed in the U.S. are also denoted in inches, such as the .243 Winchester and .40 Smith & Wesson. The one exception is 7 mm rifles. Why? I have no clue.
    February 26, 2013 1:47:03 PM

    jsc said:
    Compare the death rates of Chicago (lots of restrictive gun laws) to Vermont (extremely liberal CC laws). Any non-felon Vermont citizen over 21 can carry concealed. He (or she) doesn't need a training class or any kind of permit. Lots of blood in the streets of Vermont, isn't there?
    Aside from the 2nd Amendment clearly stating the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", I would actually support, at the State level, requiring anyone wanting to own firearms or obtain a concealed carry permit to have been trained by a certified instructor.

    Of course, this would have to come with those States repealing any assault weapons bans and removing any and all roadblocks towards concealed carry. Think of it this way, if a person was trained and qualified, then they have proven they know how to responsibly own and handle firearms, and that certification should come with the freedom to own and carry any gun not prohibited by Federal law.

    Living in New Jersey, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, I would support this change to State law but only with the caveat that those who got the certification were able to carry concealed and own any firearm not prohibited by Federal law.

    Imagine the cottage industry that would open up for Certified Pistol Instructors. Imagine the NRA actually being able to live out it's charter of promoting firearms training, education, and marksmanship.

    I know it will never happen but don't hold it against me for daydreaming...
    February 26, 2013 2:04:01 PM

    I consider myself a native Vermonter our system of gun laws would only work in Vermont.

    There are two factors for VT's low gun homicide rate the first is the thin population, there is plenty of room to stretch out or get away from annoying neighbors. Secondly is gun culture, guns are used for hunting not for revenge or as a status symbol.

    VT gun laws can not work in Philly or even large towns, if anyone has ever been to Burlington its laughably small and our largest city. You cant have the same sort of community or gun culture in other places... A gun in a city is used for defense, not anything else. So it makes perfect sense to say "You don't need a .50 cal weapon to defend yourself", or a 30 round magazine....

    You would also be hard pressed to find wackos in VT that feel the need to own heavy weapons. For example my GF's father owns several guns 2 shotguns and a few rifles... Not a tricked out AR-15 or a .50 cal rifle, very commons sense weapons. Ive seen a dude pull a gun out at a bar, Just a few months ago some dude was taking pot shots at the police from his house (Hes a local they talked him down).

    Besides when you get pissed off enough to start going on a killing spree spending 15 minutes scraping ice off your car, then another 15 while it thaws enough to see out the windows then a half an hour drive to the nearest populated area really gives you time to evaluate what the hell you are doing.
    February 26, 2013 4:42:24 PM

    ^ Reminds me of a recent speech from Senator Leahy.

    If anything really, it just goes to show that national gun laws are not a real solution to a particular State's causes of violence.

    Don't be too smug though. While Vermont's (lack of) gun laws may not work in New York, you can bet your Grandpappy's shotguns that New York's or California's gun laws will work just fine in Vermont.

    BTW - The typical bolt action .50BMG rifle starts selling at $6000. The semi-auto version starts selling at $12,000. And both weigh in at about 30 lbs unloaded. Not exactly a firearm the average gun owner in any State would have; let alone the notion of it being used for self-defense. The .50BMG rifle appeals to a very niche market, mostly collectors and competitive sport shooters.


    February 27, 2013 2:21:18 AM

    MU_Eng., I am not THAT much of a gun nut, but I could have spent 5 secs with WinCalc verifying. A few companies are making AR15 pattern rifles in 6.5 mm.

    wanamingo, I realize that I (deliberately) used an unfair comparison with Chicago and the State of Vermont. But "death rates" wasn't part of it. Rates will equalize for population density.
    March 3, 2013 12:20:36 PM

    New National bill would ban shotguns and anything magazine fed.
    March 4, 2013 2:19:04 AM

    I actually own a couple of "assault rifles". And I can say for 100% certain, that my 2 "assault rifles" don't fire faster or kill faster than a regular semi-auto hunting rifle or semi auto pistol. Democrats think these rifles are fully automatic. Even Michelle Obama thinks fully automatic rifles are legal as she so ignorantly said in her recent interview. Obama and his people are going after "assault rifles" because they LOOK dangerous, and for no other reason. I can show you 2 of the exact same rifle. One with a pistol grip and one with a regular stock. And the one with the pistol grip would be banned in New York.

    And do we really want the government telling us how many bullets we can have in a clip? Do we want them to tell us how many bullets we need to protect ourselves from 2-5 robber's or maybe more? Anyone who is for this is cleary thinking with thier emotions and not their brain. The first ban did nothing and this one won't either. This new bill they want passed will ban a lot of pistols, and even shot guns. If they have 1 military accessory on them then they are banned. Meaning a pistol with an accessory rail will be banned because it has an accessory rail. How much sense does that make?

    We'll never be able to stop the crazies. If it wasn't a gun it would have been a bomb. If it wasn't a bomb it would have been a knife. Why compare different counties deaths per year by guns they should be just comparing their homicide rates. Because countries with low gun deaths simply create death more creative ways. Do we really want to see murders revert back to using a hatchet? Say America has 100 homicides per year. 70 of them by guns. But say China has 100 homicides per year, 30 by guns. Does China really think they are stopping homicides by banning guns? Or are people simply finding other more creative ways to kill? This is why you can't compare this way. Does the left care about deaths or ONLY deaths by guns?
    March 4, 2013 8:04:12 AM

    ericjohn004 said:
    ... I can show you 2 of the exact same rifle. One with a pistol grip and one with a regular stock. And the one with the pistol grip would be banned in New York.

    eric, that is one reason one of my favorite comparisons is between a Ruger Mini-14 and any AR-15 in 5.56 mm.

    ericjohn004 said:
    Does the left care about deaths or ONLY deaths by guns?

    Only death by guns, and then only if it is white on black. Liberal bastions such as Chicago are excluded.
    March 4, 2013 8:31:47 AM

    Even if someones not white (George Zimmerman) they try to make him so.

    When you mix the zealotry of attempted racism by racists, add a death, using a gun, you have the ABCs of a good story, or NBCs, or CBS or CNN.
    Oh, and throw in the supposed neutrality of the press, since they also do all those times people use guns to defend themselves and camp on the various stories for months at a time, oh wait.......
    Oh yes, I am calling the majority of the press racist, as they make a big deal of the color of someones skin, yet they supposedly (theres that word agaian) say theres no difference
    March 4, 2013 1:10:42 PM

    The entire notion of a federal gun ban is absurd as the 2nd Amendment is very clear that the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT infringed! A discussion of a Federal ban on any and all firearms should not be even taking place. The only government entities that have the power to regulate the people's right to keep and bear arms are the State's. This newest gun ban proposal blatantly ignores the plain text written in the Constitution and usurps State's rights.

    riser said:
    New National bill would ban shotguns and anything magazine fed.
    The bill proposed by Feinstein is more about banning and confiscating weapons than it is about preventing the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms. The 2013 proposal is the 1994 AWB on steroids after snorting cocaine and shooting heroin.

    Here's a link to the Bill summary directly from Feinstein's website; Summary of Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

    Briefly...
    Quote:
    The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
  • All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
  • All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
  • All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  • All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  • All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
  • Quote:
    The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:
  • Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.
  • This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.
  • Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.
  • Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.
  • Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon


  • Here's the list of weapons to be banned, by name as specifically mentioned in the bill;
    Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

    Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

    Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

    Lastly, here is a list of the current Senate Co-Sponsors. If your Senators are on the list, contact them to express your opinion of their support for this unconstitutional act to disarm the american people.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
    Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
    Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.)
    Senator Mo Cowan (D-Mass.)
    Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
    Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.)
    Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
    Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
    Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
    Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
    Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
    Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
    Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
    Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
    Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
    Senator John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
    Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
    Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
    March 4, 2013 2:45:46 PM

    jsc said:
    eric, that is one reason one of my favorite comparisons is between a Ruger Mini-14 and any AR-15 in 5.56 mm.


    Only death by guns, and then only if it is white on black. Liberal bastions such as Chicago are excluded.



    Yeah, I actually have owed both. I've owned an AR15 and I own a Mini14. I also own an SKS but that's not the point. I took my Mini14 and put a collapsible stock on it with a pistol grip. Is it now an "assault rifle"? Or is it still a semi automatic hunting rifle? How can you define what a rifle is by the types of accessories that are part of said rifle? This is how stupid the lefts argument is on this issue. Instead of focusing on the heart of the issue, all they focus on is appearance. And I'm sad to say that not too many people can argue this point correctly even on Fox News. Democrats simply believe that guns are bad and should not be part of our culture. I love watching or listening to a democrat argue why it's better to NOT have a gun when someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you. The democrats rather be sitting freaking ducks than actually be able to protect themselves. How crazy is that crap. That just goes to show you that their "argument" doesn't hold water what-so-ever. No matter how you break it down, I'd much rather be protected by a pistol than to be nervously searching for some sharp sizzors.
    March 6, 2013 5:46:33 PM

    Let's make it simple:


    as·sault
    [ ə sáwlt ]
    1.physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack
    2.threat of bodily harm: an unlawful threat or attempt to do violence or harm to somebody else

    Anything can assault.

    I don't call mine an assault rifle. I call mine a defense rifle. :D 
    March 7, 2013 12:56:18 AM

    riser said:
    Let's make it simple:


    as·sault
    [ ə sáwlt ]
    1.physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack
    2.threat of bodily harm: an unlawful threat or attempt to do violence or harm to somebody else

    Anything can assault.

    I don't call mine an assault rifle. I call mine a defense rifle. :D 
    What the hell is the difference it still kills.
    March 7, 2013 1:28:30 AM

    Tell that, even scream that to a grizzly bear
    March 8, 2013 12:34:42 AM

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Tell that, even scream that to a grizzly bear
    This is a matter of semantics nothing else.I hate all dam guns!
    March 8, 2013 2:16:32 AM

    People in Alaska , some Im sure, hate them as well, but truly need them.
    Where I live, they sometimes are needed as well.
    Point is, whats good for the guy in the city, where the only animals are people, then it comes down to defending oneself against another person, where in other areas, its a an8imal.
    No one law should remove guns, and many different types of guns for such a diverse country such as ours, ever.
    Its why the more the federal government tries to govern from DC, the mo9re it truly fails to govern, when the local and states rights are usurped.
    You don't need forestry controls in the desert, taking guns away from some people will end up killing them.
    Even those that hate them, but have to carry, and possibly use them
    March 8, 2013 3:26:52 PM

    I call it the unselected statistic.
    In this case, it goes for getting rid of guns.
    Like the seat belt law, people die wearing seatbelts, just like shootings, the difference is, the stats used for seatbelts include those who drown strapped into their cars, as wearing seatbelts, whereas people defending themselves to the death are added onto the death by guns list.

    Now heres a place that actually uses guns, I mean really uses them

    Already gun advocates have successfully fought off proposed legislative bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in Minnesota.

    Now, they're working against the last big gun-control proposal -- universal background checks -- pushing an alternate gun bill that doesn't expand such reviews.

    A majority of the state House has signed on in support, as has the National Rifle Association and the Minnesota Sheriffs Association.
    http://www.twincities.com/minnesota/ci_22728818/modest-...

    Now, Im not going to go all apologetic on people, and explain for some reason people want their guns here, or people have good uses for guns here, as some have, then denies common sense, as here, my link shows just what common sense is.
    March 9, 2013 8:02:34 PM

    musical marv said:
    What the hell is the difference it still kills.


    The terminology is being used incorrectly to further an agenda. And no, a typical .223 caliber "assault weapon" would be unlikely to kill a grizzly bear as it is far too small and weak of a round. You'd do better to hold the rifle over your head and wave it around to try to scare the bear off than shoot the bear with such a puny round. Hey, and if the bear sees it's a scary "assault weapon," he'll run away even faster than if you were holding something less scary like a bolt-action .375 H&H, a lever-action .45-70, or a 12-gauge slug shotgun.
    March 9, 2013 10:49:44 PM

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    People in Alaska , some Im sure, hate them as well, but truly need them.
    Where I live, they sometimes are needed as well.
    Point is, whats good for the guy in the city, where the only animals are people, then it comes down to defending oneself against another person, where in other areas, its a an8imal.
    No one law should remove guns, and many different types of guns for such a diverse country such as ours, ever.
    Its why the more the federal government tries to govern from DC, the mo9re it truly fails to govern, when the local and states rights are usurped.
    You don't need forestry controls in the desert, taking guns away from some people will end up killing them.
    Even those that hate them, but have to carry, and possibly use them
    What the hell kind of world do we live in where now we need guns to defend ourselves? Why do I ask myself this society is getting more violent and more inhumane each day.
    March 10, 2013 12:08:37 AM

    Its sad.
    I can understand a man surprising a griz, and then having to shoot the bear.

    The way I see it is, if the good doesn't stand up against the bad, the bad rules, as has often ben the case in lower neighborhoods, where people that are different don't want the "man" around, and defend/protect criminals which are more "like" them.
    This prevents a good relation from happening between the police and those in the neighborhoods, where weve gotten to the point, those neighborhoods leaders actually are calling the "man/cops" out, so they can remain popular.
    Certain groups back these leaders, and follow suit, as long as it doesn't cross into the "others" jurisdictions, it keeps them elected, has some neighborhood leaders, but doesn't do a damn thing for the criminal who maybe started off with petty theft, but having gotten away from the reasons Ive stated, besides the gap, where the cops cant do their jobs, and no one will talk to them, it all escalates, and soon, everybobies got one, a shotgun or preferably a handgun.
    So, certain segments occasionally clash with other segments, sometimes thru necessity, sometimes thru happenstance, and sometimes, the bad guy just wants what you have.
    These people want ways to protect themselves, cant understand how its gotten this far, as they have stood up in their neighborhoods, and usually never see such things, or hear guns being fired etc.
    To say to the law abiders youll have to lay down your gun, that's only carrying this whole thing further away from the direction we ALL need to be going in, and it is a travesty and a shame its happening today, as our leaders look in the wrong places, searching for the wrong things from the wrong people
    March 14, 2013 5:58:49 AM

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Man chunkymonster, you guys got it bad in NJ.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/nj-mother-fo...

    I mean, really?


    Wow! I had to read that article a couple of times of the past two days to make sure I understood it correctly. From what I can tell, she did nothing wrong or illegal and is truly the victim of a pseudo-public official on a power trip who didn't appreciate someone who knew her rights and that the law was on her side. I hope to the Almighty that this douche-bag get's his butt handed to him and find liable for slander. unfortunately, I do not think that this family will get their guns back without a lengthy and arduous court battle. I HOPE that Gloucester County still has some judges that respect the law and realize the entirety of the case.

    Sadly, this is not the first instance I know in NJ where a phone call resulted in a law abiding citizen having their firearms confiscated.

    Thanks for the link. I will be sure to scan the local papers to see if there are any follow up stories.

    March 14, 2013 4:38:22 PM

    Someone should lose their job for impersonating an officer.
    They should all quit acting like little tin gods, listen to their boss, the tax payer, and find a solution, like do this when the husbands home, you know, both parties go out of their way and set a date that's mutually acceptable.
    My question is, or rather common sense thoughts are, she should have the right to have it re evaluated to its real market worth, and not go specifically with the states questimates.
    If she isn't allowed this, this is simply taxation without representation to its highest degree, which the people that work for us should take into consideration what public attitudes this creates, as their true bosses wont like it much come election time.
    The rest will have to come down to witnesses and facts, in the meantime, the state holds the guns, and if something should happen to them , their family,during this time, and if the sleaze bags dare to even say it was merely unfortunate, maybe so was Conneticut?
    No, that attitude and ideal doesn't fit in either scenario.
    They should give the guns back and resolve this issue
    March 15, 2013 9:13:32 AM

    The next Kent state will be droned, and I don't care which party anyone espouses, this needs to stop NOW
    !