NJ firearm rationing proposals
Scott Bach discusses it. As he points out, NJ already requires a permit for each handgun purchase, which can take months to obtain. Why add one-gun-a-month? Is there any claim that criminal "straw men" are out there getting a dozen permits a month so they can resell?
Living in NJ, if I wanted to buy one gun after another (i.e. not applying for a bunch of permits simultaneously), it's not even possible for me to buy a handgun, apply for another permit and then buy the second handgun within a month's time. My best time for a permit is 6 weeks.
Obviously it only hurts those who wish to buy more than one gun at a time. Want to take up cowboy action shooting and need matching pistols? Maybe next season because it's going to take months to get what you need.
Straw purchases are already illegal. So exactly what is this addressing? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
Posted by: Mike Gray at December 3, 2008 10:29 AM
Maryland has a once a calender month law.
My understanding is that the goal is to trip up and ensare law-abiding enthusiasts.
If somebody eager waits just the proscribed time, and reapplies, he might have messed up because some months have an extra day that he didn't account for, or the paperwork might have been filed a day late. So to be safe, one can only apply every 5 weeks.
Posted by: dusty at December 3, 2008 10:37 AM
I guess this puts to rest any doubt there could have been that such laws were meant to keep the public safe. Of course enforcing waiting periods against people who already possess guns is another obvious example. If you doubt that Obama and other gun controllers want to take away ALL your guns then take note of this and realize their true intent. They're doing every little thing they can to make gun ownership more expensive and more risky to reduce ownership and thereby reduce political support until they can ban them all.
I wonder if a ballot initiative could pass in California to keep waiting periods except not for people who already have guns? Maybe it could be called the "Waiting period enhancement initiative". I suppose it's just better to wait and see if the courts will overturn these pointless restrictions after Heller.
Posted by: Critic at December 3, 2008 01:19 PM
And of course these are commonsense and reasonable laws that any law abiding citizen is happy to follow.
Remember Heller fell under the 2nd since the District is already federally controlled. The Court provided its stupidity in that it doesn't understand that "exclusive legislation" means only Congress can pass a law in the District. If another governmental body passes the law, the exclusive requirement of the Constitution is not met.
And for state level battles, the 2nd still has not been incorporated (another SC lie) under the 14th so just as it has been since 1833, the 2nd is not applicable against the states, except that the law books in 1829 had already said it was but then the truly brilliant magician John Marshall bent over and looked up his arse where he found that the entire BoR was not applicable against the states.
What a maroon!
Posted by: fwb at December 3, 2008 03:03 PM
Ah! The armpit of America speaks again. We should all listen very attentively.
Posted by: rio arriba at December 3, 2008 06:25 PM
Anti-Second Amendment folks always talk about the need for "more reasonable regulation."
The ambiguity therein is the key to what they are saying.
They don't mean "regulation that is more reasonable."
They mean "more regulation."
In their minds, "more regulation" IS "more reasonable."
Until more people on the pro-Second Amendment side are convinced that total ban is what the Anti-Second Amendment side wants, the pro-Second Amendment side will continue to lack the necessary vigilance and legislative aggressiveness that is required to really defend the right to own and carry loaded firearms for lawful self-defense.
And until the pro-Second Amendment side becomes solidly pro-CCW, the pro-Second Amendment side will continue to be deficient in its commitment to being pro-EBR.
And THAT is a serious problem.
Being pro-CCW is a necessary but not sufficient level of commitment to the fullest and freest practice of the Second Amendment.
Having the fullest and freest practice of the Second Amendment by as many law abiding folks as possible is the best way to prevent insidious infringement of the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at December 4, 2008 07:12 AM
Once the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states, as seems likely to happen relatively soon, will not these regulatory schemes be vulnerable to challenge?
Posted by: Jeff Showell at December 4, 2008 07:50 AM
I live in NJ and the law has never stopped the legislature from doing what it wants to do as it thinks the law is whatever it says it is.
The courts are as bad because they make it up as they go along and both are beholden to the Teachers Union.
Until recently we were able to say that Louisiana was the most corrupt state but not any longer. It appears as if the legislature believes they are on the soprano's and try hard to live the image
Posted by: Rich at December 4, 2008 08:39 AM
Firearms rationing? Is that like rationing of religiouis freedom? Or rationing of free speech? Or rationing of freedom of the press (the right to write and publish one's sentiments)? Etc., etc.?
Those attempting to ration rights should be asked by those they attempt to apply the rationing to about these points so they can explain this rationing of fundamental rights.
Oh, I forgot, the rationers don't accept arms as rights related in any way, and the rationees don't know enough about the Bill of Rights related history of the Second Amendment to fight their way out of a wet paper bag and stuff that history down the rights opponents' throats.
Sounds like an educational problem to me.
Posted by: David E. Young at December 4, 2008 08:56 AM
Restriction or mandate? "One gun a month. It's the law!"
Posted by: Jim D. at December 4, 2008 11:36 PM
This past August, I went to apply for two handgun permits, and I told the folks in the Firearms Division, that I wanted to apply for 17 permits, to gauge their reaction. They raised their eyebrows, looked me in the eye, and asked if I was serious. I told them I said that just to see what would be said since I wanted to apply for two. They were sorta curious as to why, I told them, they got a kick outta it, but I'm concluding that if anybody walked into any PD dept in NJ and applied for more than 2 or 3 at a time, flags would be raised, and the turn around time would be even longer than what it is in some municipalities.
Posted by: Cemetery's Gun Blob at December 5, 2008 09:54 PM