What happens when a state which is already one of the most restrictive when it comes to 2nd Amendment Rights decides it wants to Do Something?
Big N.J. gun bills about to clear final hurdle, and Phil Murphy wants to make them law
Gov. Phil Murphy will soon get his chance to sign tougher gun restriction rules into law, some of which were rebuffed by his predecessor for eight years, former Gov. Chris Christie.
That’s because the state Senate will vote Thursday on a half-dozen proposals at the Statehouse in Trenton, including measures that would reduce magazine capacity, armor-piercing bullets, make it tougher to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, expand background checks on private gun sales, and keep firearms out of the hands of people deemed a threat to themselves and others.
This article was from the AM. According to the AP, all six passed out of the Senate which is protected by armed personnel and going to Murphy’s desk in a building surrounded by armed security. Here’s what they do
The bills on the docket Monday include:
*Â A1217, which would create restraining orders in the state allowing family members and others to ask a judge to have a person’s guns seized and ban them from buying weapons for up to a year.
*Â A1181, which would mandate law enforcement in the state to seize a person’s guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to themselves or others.
* A2758, which would strictly define that state residents need to show a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun — meaning they must show they face a specific threat to their own safety.
*Â A2757, which would require all private gun sales in the state to go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.
*Â A2759, which would create an outright ban in the state on possessing armor-piercing bullets.
* A2761, which would ban magazines in the state that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.
Armor-piercing bullets are already illegal. I personally do not have a problem with private gun sales requiring a background check. As far as the first two, so called “red flag” laws, they are really, really broad, and provide no penalties for people pulling stunts which take away a person’s rights, both at the federal and state level.
The justifiable need bill, A2758, will surely end up in federal court, and perhaps the Supreme Court, quickly, and one of the previous cases they’ll use is District of Columbia v Heller, in which the Court ruled against the government establishing a justifiable need.
The ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is exactly that: a ban. There is no grandfathering. If you have one, get it out of the state, turn it in, destroy it, whatever, otherwise there will be criminal penalties. Who does this affect? Law abiding citizens. Those in possession of firearms illegally won’t care. And if you have a rifle with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 you need to turn it in, make it inoperable, or get it out of the state.
Why does it always seem that the gun grabbers are trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, while giving a free pass to actual criminals?
How will they define “armor piercing”? A .22 mag will go through some “bullet proof” vests. A .50 cal will go through any vest.
XM855 bullets are steel cored. Just like .30 ’06 AP. And that’s a popular round. I frankly hadn’t heard that AP rounds are illegal. Guess I’m in trouble.
Oregon is poised to do the same thing. Kate Brown, and Jerry Brown. Shit is Brown.
AP rounds are not illegal in most places. And as Sarthurk points out, all bullets have some armor piercing properties to one degree or another. Nor is there any real standard for what constitutes AP, other than a really obvious and arbitrary military designation. But modern service ammunition (green tip) is specifically not AP, but has better armor defeating properties than the previous 5.56mm 55 gr AP ammo.
It’s all part of doing to ammo the same things they do to guns. Attach arbitrary labels to common products to make them seem “scary” and unreasonable for civilians to own.
And once again, we don’t need a crystal ball to see how “justiable need” laws will work out. In every place where they have been used in the USA, local officials decide that whatever reason you have, it isn’t good enough, unless you are a fiend of the mayor, or governor, or a major contributor to someone’s re-election. Most US states used to have this same standard and most have changed their laws into what is known as “shall issue” states because of the abuses inherent in the system. the Justifiable need standard is in effect a “no guns” standard. And the Supreme Court has already decreed that in the case in DC.