#NJAssembly Gun Safety Vote Scheduled for Thursday

Gun proliferation advocates are like mosquitoes on a damp summer day. No matter where you turn, they show up. They outnumbered the gun safety advocates at the governor’s task force meeting in Camden earlier this month. Their shouts at the Senate Majority Leader and Committee Chair at the Assembly’s St. Valentine’s Day hearings were palpable. Now, they’re preparing to make their voices heard in the Assembly chamber as that body is set to vote on gun safety legislation on Thursday. Among the bills to be considered is one that prohibit sale of guns to individuals on the terrorist watch list. Incredibly, no Republican on the Law and Public Safety Committee voted for that bill. Other common-sense legislation includes limitations on magazine size and armor-piercing ammunition.

No doubt, the NRA weapons-industrial complex is planning to bus in hundreds of the same boisterous advocates to the Thursday voting session. Hopefully, those who support gun safety laws will not be a silent majority. There’s at least one group that is busing folks from North Jersey to attend the session. Whether or not you can be there, be sure your Assembly members (and sadly, there are Democrats who are in the clutches of the NRA) know how important it is to strengthen New Jersey’s gun safety laws. There was a good turnout at the Jersey City rally on a cold January day (photo). Let’s repeat that and make sure our lawmakers know their constituents demand gun safety.  

Comments (30)

  1. rickryder

    I just read your article and your not being truthful to your readers! The NRA had nothing to do with the bus loads of Patriots that attended the rally or the meeting…. It was mostly NJ2AS members and people from sporting good stores and hunting clubs!  Why do you unfairly tell the story? I love the way you say “ARMOR-PIERCING AMMUNITION”…NO what the bill says is ammo that will pierce body armor which means most every hunting rifle ammo….body armor is designed to stop pistol bullets not rifle bullets…. I think you all need to start printing the facts and if you don’t know them take a course in firearms so you have a clue what your talking about!

    So can any of you tell me if they pass these unconstitutional laws how are they going to affect the criminals that carry out these killings?  They had the toughest laws in Newtown Conn. and that didn’t stop the guy from doing what he did…. Do you think 10-20- 100 new laws would have stopped him??

    We have laws for drugs,child porn,human trafficking etc. but it happens daily on the black market….you see the laws don’t matter to the criminals!

    The only thing that will stop most of this madness is ENFORCING THE LAWS! STIFF JAIL SENTENCES FOR GUN CRIMES! Better yet how about capitol punishment for first offences,that should make them think twice!

    Wake up people!

  2. LawfulGunOwner

    You are WAY off base, the committee last week started out by not wanting to hear any testimony at all on the bills, pro or con. What kind of democracy is that? As a Democrat, I was there to protest and testify against this blatant set of infringements on my rights. I am a  lifelong lawful firearm owner and Union member. I own semi automatic rifles and pistols and have never shot anyone. My wife does as well and is able to protect herself in our home if needs be I AM NOT THE PROBLEM! WHY MUST THESE LAWS EVEN BE INTRODUCED?? They will do NOTHING to stop ANY criminals AT ALL!

  3. teaneckresident1

    The meeting on Sunday in Teaneck changed my mind about gun owners.  They were all very nice respectable human beings. We  are passing laws about a subject we know little about. I admit I am ignorant about guns. All I knew about them was what I saw on TV and heard others talk about. One young man by the name of Marcus proved most everythign wrong. I did think a pistol grip on a rifle was evil because it gives a person more control. Well heck, don’t you want to be in control of a gun? He’s right.

    Let’s slow down and our legislatures should too.  We need to demand that our representatives talk to and learn from people from the NJ Second Amendment Society  before making any decisions. I am now concerned that we will be hurting more people than doing good.  

  4. Fant0m

    If Joe Biden, Giffords, The PRESIDENT, and PIERS MORGAN can all admit that the new laws would not in any be able to stop events like Sandy Hook… then why do we call them “common sense laws”? Why Do we push them so hard?

    A Lack of education is a serious problem here, and I challenge the writer of this article and anyone who agrees with him to a debate of facts, merit and logic.

    If you are going to TALK about something ATLEAST know what you are talking about. NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.. and yet Newark, Camden, and Jersey City are some of the most dangerous places IN THE COUNTRY!

    When we you.. and everyone like you going to STOP calling people LIKE ME bad people! When are you going to stop LIMITING ME out of your own ignorance and fear of something YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!? I am not a bad person for owning a firearm, I am not an evil or malicous person for expressing my 2nd Amendment rights… YOU WILL NOT PAINT ME THIS WAY…

    I am Not broken for wanting to practice my rights! – YOU DO NOT NEED TO FIX ME!

    I do not need more regulation when I didn’t need it in the first place – STOP REGULATING THOSE WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

    Your War and Push for illogical and factless laws are not something we will take lying down and until you wake up you will find a bumpy road ahead of yourself.



  5. carolh

    and plan on publishing my diary on it tomorrow morning.  It was a productive discussion and I was able to record a lot of what the Second Amendment Society had to say.  

    Not sure if you were there as well, but Loretta Weinberg and Gordon Johnson were very open to hearing from you all.  We need to tone down the rhetoric on both sides so we can understand each other and get to a better place.  I was optimistic that we can have more discussions about this.  One thing that surprised me was the hearty agreement that we need to prosecute the criminals more than we do.  That was a starting point I think.  

  6. rickryder

    Right on!

  7. mmgth

    Oh boy.

  8. Erik Preuss

    Why is it necessary own a handgun? Or a Bushmaster that can be easily converted into an M16? When was the last time anyone read about someone successfully protecting themselves with a handgun? More often you hear things along the lines of what’s happening to Oscar Pistorius right now (not saying he is innocent btw).

    Also it isn’t clear that limiting guns won’t have an effect on violence. Check out this Times article from 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01

  9. deciminyan (Post author)

    Yes, we should aggressively prosecute alleged lawbreakers, but I don’t think that alone will stem the gun violence in our cities, nor would it stop people like Adam Lanza. Other measures are needed, too.

  10. LawfulGunOwner

    So as to further increase incarceration rates? Does that make any kind of sense?

  11. carolh

    to bring it the legislature.  There seems to be misunderstanding on the part of the gun owners who over-reacted this week about how legislation actually comes to the floor. The vote was simply to bring it to debate in the whole chambers.  The vote was not to pass or not pass the legislation, but simply to bring it to a debate. That seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding here.  Also, do not assume that this is a Democratic or Republican issue.  Plenty of NJ Republicans don’t own guns and many union supporting, loyal Democrats in NJ own guns.  Lets be fair here. In a Democracy laws are always being introduced.  All voices need to be heard when discussing any legislation. The goal is to prevent mass shootings as well as street murders in our cities, as well as accidents and criminal activity.  The goal is not to inconvenience you. By speaking to your legislators (not just yelling at them) you can help make sure that any laws passed make sense and actually solve the problem.  The conversation needs to keep going, but it is more helpful if it is a respectful one.

  12. joeschmo

    I think the people got mad because the legislature did not follow due process in that they came with their votes made up, actually voted on bills, then wanted to hear testimony after the released all the bills from Committee. This is what made everyone so mad, you cant skirt the process. The way a bill is made is that you hear testimony, consider it, and decide to release or kill a bill. We know very well how this process works. We also know when our legislators are trying to push an agenda while seeming reasonable. For example, assemblyman Mainor is the chair of law and public safety, but is a fan of very violent, misogynistic facebook pages that have been an embarrassment to us. Some would say that it makes them more mad that a horrible person like this who promotes violence on his facebook page as a public official cant be smart enough to actually decide public policy. Think about it, if you are a public official and you have that on your facebook page for all the world to see, then deny it, and then admit it, you probably are too stupid to decide on public policy. Also the fact that the committee gave more than the allotted 2 minutes to anti gun speakers. Loretta got heckled for about 3 minutes before she realized her time was up. She actually tried to lecture the audience by telling them ‘this is a democracy’…to which the audience responded with ‘this is a republic’…yes, gun owners know how the process works for sure…Its the politicians I have questions about….You dont need to be a gun owner to get mad at the way due process was ignored, the lack of common sense decision making on the part of Mainor, and the stupidity of these bills that do nothing for crime, but look to jam up regular law abiding people. If you ever want to have a conversation about gun violence, start in the ghettos. My guns stay in the safe and do not contribute to violence.  

  13. mmgth

    Guess you guys hang out.

  14. rickryder

    I guess no response to the fact that this publication is just spewing lies…

  15. carolh

    You still have time to be heard.  The Senator was right.  This is Democracy. Debate.  Talking – not just threatening each other by waving a gun around. The bills were not intended to target you even though you feel defensive. That’s your problem.  They were not intended to make you annoyed. They are intended to make us all safer.  Now, you can either be part of the solution, or you can prevent any solution at all.  But there are those of us who care more about preventing more children dying than we care about your feelings. If you are against keeping folks on the terrorist watch list from getting guns then that means you must be FOR terrorists getting weapons.  Hurray for you.  If you are against gun saftey training, then you must be for men like the father recently who accidentally shot and killed his seven year old son at a gun show.  How sweet.  You are either FOR preventing needless suffering and death, or you are for it.  We have no time or inclination to feel sorry about how you feel.  If you are a law-abiding gun owner, then the law is not “targeting” you.  You are just being too sensitive. What we really need is not your obstructionism now, but your honest help in how to reduce gun violence, because we will not sit quietly while children are dying. We cannot.  Either you want a safer world, or you don’t.  We’d prefer your help to get there, but if we have to hurt your feelings to get something done, so be it.

  16. carolh

    rather than from the NRA – who represents the gun makers.  The NRA has been trying to drown out the real conversation by preventing us from getting real data.  My cousin, a union man and a Democrat, who likes to target shoot, and is a re-enactor ( he has even shot cannons) told me he dropped his NRA membership long ago when he realized they did not represent him. There are a lot of folks out there like my cousin.  I also know many re-enactors personally (who Senator Weinberg has met and spoken of) who use their firearm skills to teach American history to the public – including children.  We can talk to these folks.  In fact, we must.  

  17. liz

    I think it is vitally important for both sides to be heard in order for us to be able to move forward in discussing how to bring about better gun safety laws and how to address the violence in our society.

    As I said at the forum on Sunday, in order to reach a compromise both sides are going to have to give up something.

    However, it was also brought out that our legislators do not always know the facts when they propose bills regarding gun control/safety.

    I also want to take this opportunity to let everyone know that the Teaneck Dems will be holding another forum/town hall meeting in the next month or so to continue the dialogue.

    As Carolh said- we can talk with these folks- In fact we must in order to come to a positive conclusion to this issue.

  18. Erik Preuss

    Are you telling me that gun owners need their guns so badly that they will break the law to obtain them? Does that make any kind of sense?

  19. carolh

    distance themselves from the NRA to begin with. The NRA is preventing meaningful data on which we can create legislation.  People I have known had guns for various reasons.   Some are former police officers, some are target shooters.  There are guns not used for sport or hunting.  Some people use guns to hunt deer to feed their families.  One deer can fill the freezer for winter.  It is not necessary to own a handgun, but some people do use them for protection – like women who have been the victims of domestic violence – or target shooting.  Personally, I feel safer without one.  There are as many different types of gun owners as there are gun safety activists.  What is really sad about the Pistorius story is that misogyny may have played an even bigger role in the story.  I think if we reduce crimes and domestic violence, less folks will feel the need to take matters into their own hands. I think a lot of gun owners would agree with that.

  20. carolh

    they would not care what laws were passed. The gun owners who came to the forum were folks who follow the law. They are just upset at having to follow more of them.  But do not make the mistake of labeling them criminals. That is how we get into these arguments.

  21. LawfulGunOwner

    legally–say a 13 round magazine for a handgun I own–are illegal the next day. So a metal box with a spring in it that I have owned for several years is now a felony. Doe this make ANY kind of sense to you at all? It does not to me. I paid more than $30 for this and several more like it. The gun in question was designed in 1935 to use that size magazines. Smaller size magazines (10 rds) are not widely available and cost more than $60. Why am I being unfairly targeted and being forced to either sell or have confiscated property I paid for, based on a law that has no factual or scientific basis that it will actually affect crime at all?  

  22. Erik Preuss

    But I think the idea that creating stricter gun laws = higher incarceration rate doesn’t really make a lot of sense; especially if current gun owners are grandfathered in.

  23. LawfulGunOwner

    You cry about ‘the children’ but none of these bills will do a thing to prevent someone from killing a bunch of kids if the want to with a firearm or a bomb, fire or burying them in a bus as in Chowchilla many years ago. The so called ‘terror watch list’ is maybe 2500 people world wide. How many are in NJ and would even bother to apply for a FPID a or P2P? Waste of time, does nothing. It’s ‘feel good’ legislation

    By the way, are you even aware of how difficult it is  to legally obtain a firearm–any firearm–in NJ?  To obtain a Firearms Purchaser ID Card? Or Permit to Purchase Pistol (which also registers them, a copy is with the NJSP). The fingerprinting (every 2 years!) background, mental health and domestic violence checks? And an employer check? And two references not related to you must vouch for you? That is FOR EACH AND EVERY HAND GUN, EVERY TIME! So by the time I buy a handgun–reveolver or semiauto, or flintlock–I have had at least 5 separate background checks. And its starts ALL OVER AGAIN the next time. Please get a clue, these new laws are NOT desined to ‘save the children’ they are designed to punish lawful gun owners becuase there are people in NJ that hate gun owners. It is hate, and prejudice, pure and simple. I am a DEMOCRAT and am TIRED of being BLAMED for things I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH.

  24. carolh

    need to hear from you before the Senate vote in April. Please keep the conversation going so that any bills if they are passed, make sense and actually work. If there are any laws that are already out there that make no sense, they may decide to change those or get rid of them.  

  25. carolh

    But people on the terrorist watchlist DID buy guns.  There are some folks who think that gun owners are overzealous, but those folks are in the minority. And there are a few folks out there who are hoarding guns and planning to bring down the government. But thankfully, just like the gun safety advocates who don’t like gun owners, the “preppers” are few as well.  You can’t make everyone like you.  But by keeping the conversation going, you can at least show your reasonable side to the legislators who are much more likely to take your opinion into consideration.

  26. carolh

    a gun out of somebody’s trunk with no background check does not mean we shouldn’t worry about the main way criminals that you want off the street get their hands on them.  Those guys are the target of these laws, not folks like you.

  27. LawfulGunOwner

    Lawful gun owners. Again, the example of the 10 round magazines. There will be no compensation, if I turn them in. If the bill is passed and signedinto law, at some date in the future (90 days after signing, current text), on that 91st day I am committing a felony. There are MANDATORY MINIMUMS in NJ for certain classes of felonies. So YES, it WILL result in higher incarceration rates. You should really read up and KNOW what the current firearms laws are in NJ and what exactly is proposed, rather than relying on talking points from OFA

  28. LawfulGunOwner

    change the inefficient paper driven process to a more rleaibel electronic one for legally obtaining firearms. We habe also called, emailed, sent letters and faxes to the governor, all the state Assembly and Senators, and all the members of the L &PS committe. In many cases they ADMITTED that these bills would do NOTHING to reduce or stop any crime or shootings. But ‘we have to do DOMETHING’ I personally heard that out of the mouths of 2 of the Assembly law & public safety committee memebrs or staffers.

    I highly  doubt the current nonsense laws will be changed, as they are trying to lump more nonsense on top of it. I have  been a gun owner in NJ a very long time, through the 1991 Florio ban, and I can tell you that it is quite likely that Democrats will lose a big number of votes this fall, from Democrat gun owners like myself. I will vote 3rd party or stay home.

  29. LawfulGunOwner

    I have bought guns in private sales with no NIC check BECAUSE I have an NJFPID and P2P. Criminals are NOT going to suddenly give up buying guns illegally beacuse its made more illegal. You SAY these laws ar not targeting legal gun owners, BUT THEY ARE. We are not stupid, my dear.

  30. Erik Preuss

    But is that a justification for continuing to make them easy to obtain? That’s like saying people will drive drunk no matter how strict the penalties, so we shouldn’t have any penalties at all. Many potential criminals (see suburban kids and adults) have not the slightest clue where to obtain an illegal firearm. You can’t tell me they will just “find a way” without backing that up with facts. People shouldn’t be offended about background checks, they are pretty practical. If you have nothing to indicate volatile or violent behavior in your background you can own a gun. But if you do have a history of volatile or violent behavior it probably isn’t wise to own a gun. What is the issue with that logic?


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *