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?
(
It is very, very easy to fall down the minutia rabbit hole when it comes to climate policy—specifically because the writing of these policies has been characterized by white male power brokering between strong and potentially problematic personalities. This “business as usual†approach to public decision making (where the right men get around the right table and fix the right problems) just doesn’t work for climate policy. Why? Because of the moral and economic quandaries that underlie how we address a planetary-scale problem at a regional level. Climate change is inseparable from decision making on human rights, because of the basic moral math that the poorest and most vulnerable communities have the greatest to lose and yet are the least culpable for contributing to the problem. I’m going to say it like it is: When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.
The group working to ban some semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines in Oregon is taking another step forward.
