"We don't want to take your guns" Exept New Jersey wants to.

[oneshooter]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by rrneck (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-26/news/47674812_1_gun-magazines-magazine-capacity-prevent-gun-violence


TRENTON New Jersey Democrats on Monday proposed legislation that would limit the ammunition capacity of gun magazines, 14 months after a massacre at a Connecticut elementary school revived a national debate about the role of guns in America.

The bill, announced by the Legislature's Democratic leadership at a Statehouse news conference with parents of children slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, would reduce magazine capacity to 10 rounds, from 15.

It also would ban semiautomatic rifles with fixed-magazine capacities that exceed 10 rounds.
snip

"This legislation represents the largest gun ban and gun-confiscation scheme in the history of the state. It will make felons out of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens overnight," said Darin Goens, state liaison for New Jersey of the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm.


There is no grandfather clause, and no lead time. When the bill is signed, you are a felon.

Crosspost from GC&RKBA

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Goens is right there, whipping up the hysteria.

You're doing just what Wayne ordered, Darin.

[billh58]

6. An anti-Democratic,

pro-Republican, pro-NRA effort just like Uncles Wayne and Ted ordered. The right-wing gun lobby at its finest.

[oneshooter]

9. Read again, this is a Democrate written and pushed law.

"TRENTON New Jersey Democrats on Monday proposed legislation"

[billh58]

10. This is a "Democrate" written and pushed law?

No, it is a Democratic written and promoted law in response to, and on behalf of, their Democratic constituents. My post was in response to the NRA representative's wild-eyed hysteria about the proposed law.

Maybe you should read again.

[oneshooter]

12. Do you agree with the law as written? n/t

[billh58]

13. Yes. n/t

[Chan790]

51. Yeah, it's remarkably similar to the one I fought for here in CT. n/t

[linuxman]

11. Reading is hard.

I'd rather vomit my feelings all over the keyboard.

[Scootaloo]

53. Democrate?

?

????

[mwrguy]

2. Why do you need more than ten rounds?

[oneshooter]

3. The rifles i question are 22 rim fire.

They use a tube magazine mounted below the barrel that holds 15 rounds of ammo. There are millions of them, having been a standard for 50+ years.
The law has no grandfathering of existing firearms, and no time period to turn them in. If you own one of them then you are a felon the second the bill is signed into law.

[mwrguy]

4. Rimfire rounds won't kill a child?

Amazing.

[oneshooter]

7. You really need to read closer.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Those .22s are bolt action.

As a bolt action rifle, they wouldn't be impacted because they are not semi-automatic under the definition in the law.

[billh58]

15. From the link in the OP:

"To lawful gun owners - who I have great deal of respect for - we're not hurting one of them," said Sweeney, who grew emotional at the news conference. "For sportsmen, we're not hurting one. And if it prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it."

I tend to believe a Democrat over the NRA.

[oneshooter]

23. There is no specification of semi-auto

Any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. No matter the caliber or type of action.

[NutmegYankee]

26. (4) A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds.

x. "Semi-automatic" means a firearm which fires a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger and is self-reloading or automatically chambers a round, cartridge, or bullet.
y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than [15] 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

[petronius]

27. I think it is limited to semi-auto: the definition of "assault firearm" is what's being

edited, and that starts down around line w. This bill is changing the definitions of things ('assault firearms' and 'large capacity ammunition magazines') that are banned/restricted in other sections...

[dionysus]

42. are they talking internal or external mags here? the NY laws here are for external only.

[snooper2]

93. you aren't going to respond to post #26 are you?

[proudretiredvet]

72. back up

There are many different models of tube fed .22 semiautomatic rifles out there. If you doubt this I'll give you a list and links.

When you are talking about guns please take the time to research and know what you are talking about.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. In case there are 11 invaders. n/t

[petronius]

8. This seems to be the bill in question:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_I1.HTM

It looks like the current 15-round limit also apples to fixed magazines and all calibers; the proposed change at least seems overly restrictive and unfair to current owners...

[NutmegYankee]

17. Most fixed magazine firearms are bolt or lever action.

The 10 round limit only applies to semi-automatic firearms. That ensures that classic rifles like the M1 Garand are not affected, and the higher capacity tube fed bolt/lever action rifles are also not affected. Semi-auto nearly always has a detachable magazine.

[X_Digger]

18. Remington speedmaster 552, etc. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

20. Then I would recommend that they add the word "centerfire".

That was what Connecticut did to exempt the tube fed .22s with their law last year.

[X_Digger]

29. This is New Jersey. The morons banned hollow point bullets.

Expect them to be rational? Hah!

[petronius]

19. Many, maybe most, but not all, right? Isn't the Marlin Model 60 an example

of something that would suddenly become banned under this law? (Unless I'm missing something in the text.)

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/selfloading/60.asp

I'm not seeing the justification for this degree of restrictiveness...

[NutmegYankee]

21. Obviously they need to make a distinction for centerfire vs rimfire.

I didn't realize they had tube fed semi-auto .22s. That must be fairly new. As it stands now, the law as written can't pass as they have to have a grandfather clause and compliance period to be Constitutional.

[proudretiredvet]

76. not new at all

They have been making tube fed semi .22 rifles for over 50 years and there are a lot of them out there.
As written this law is way too far reaching and obviously written by gun ignorant people.
But that is usually the case.

[Jenoch]

22. I wonder how many tube fed .22 semi-auto rifles are used in crimes?

I also wonder why they are being targeted by this legislation.

[NutmegYankee]

30. They are not being targeted. The author probably didn't know about them.

As the bill still is in committees and hasn't reported out, a tweak to fix that is expected. At a minimum, the judicial committee will require a grace period.

[Jenoch]

35. Too often the people writing these gun regulations

do not seem to know much about guns.

[proudretiredvet]

74. Not many rifles of any kind are used in crimes

Look up the stats they are there for all to see. Blunt force instruments, rocks, sticks, elbows, hands and feet, kill more people every year in this country than rifles do.

I would not want to burden anyone with facts but those are the facts.

[Jenoch]

81. I did know that.

My question was somewhat rhetorical. I think there are more murders using feet than there are using rifles.

[dionysus]

44. the M-1 is semi automatic but has an internal magazine, as opposed to those crappy AR-15s

everyone loves so much.

[proudretiredvet]

77. That is your opinion

There are far more AR-15 modern sporting rifles out there than M1's. So it is obvious that others do not share your thoughts.

[dionysus]

92. opinions are all about personal preference.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. good for n.j.

[oneshooter]

24. Why? n/t

[RobertEarl]

48. They might save a few kids lives, that's why.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. How? Is there something especially deadly about rounds 11-15?

[RobertEarl]

59. You can't count?

Actually you're right. To save the most innocent kids lives they should just ban all guns. But they can't do that, so they compromise some poor innocent lives so that gun owners can go bam bam bam, real fast and manly like.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. A name you should research: Seng-Hui Cho

He managed to kill more people using ten-round magazines than died at Sandy Hook.
So even if you get what you want, you won't have accomplished anything substantial
towards saving innocent kids lives

But that's ok, you've still got this feel-good proposal that shows those gun owners who's boss!

[RobertEarl]

64. See? You are right

In order to save the most lives we should ban all guns. But lives just aren't as important as guns, I guess.

[PowerToThePeople]

66. "But lives just aren't as important as guns"

This is why we will not be able to come to a compromise. What you say is true. We will have to solve this issue without their help or consent.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Repeal the Second Amendment, and we'll talk.

Until then, live with it...

[PowerToThePeople]

69. rude

did I say something to you? I think I was talking to RobertEarl.

FYI, the tide is turning, your kind will end up seeing their guns melted down in a smelter sooner than you think.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. If you didn't want it commented upon, don't post it on a discussion board

And I meant what I said- you lot are all hat and no cattle. Love or hate the NRA, they
do have >3 million members (who pay for their memberships AND VOTE), while the
best you prohibitionists can do is mash up 1,500 so politicians with 150,000 "likes"
on Facebook (Mayors Against Illegal Guns/Moms Demand Action).

BTW,the last time we were told here that "the tide is turning" was before these
happened:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172126558

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172135246

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172135030

At 12:01 this morning, Jan 5th, Illinois started accepting Concealed Carry permit applications

The Illinois State Police started accepting online applications this morning from any qualified applicant for its Shall Issue concealed carry permits. The law was written by our downstate Dems and passed by the Dem speaker and Dem Senate president, including an embarassing massive override of a Quinn amendatory veto.They expect from 400,000 to 500,000 applications in the first year. But based on the recent Wisconsin and Ohio experience some think that may be a low estimate.

"More than 13,000 (Illinois) concealed carry applications get early OK"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014690293

"Chicago Ban on Gun Sales in City Unconstitutional, Judge Rules"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014726854

Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons
Source: SF Gate

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state's permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution's Second Amendment by requiring residents to show "good cause" - and not merely the desire to protect themselves - to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone who claims a need for self-protection.

"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in the majority opinion...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-strikes-California-law-limiting-concealed-5232386.php

By all means, please keep on doing what you and those like you have been doing-
you've helped make gun control what it is today!

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Well then, get busy repealing the Second Amendment

All you'll need is to get two-thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures
to agree with you.

Also while you're at it, you'll need to ban metalworking and completely seal both borders:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-07/police-seize-sub-machine-gun-from-bikie-property/4741048

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/sub-machine-gun-seized-from-gang-raid/story-fnhocxo3-1226659401117


Do all that, and we'll all be safe from guns!

http://www.cryptocomb.org/ATFE%20Mexico%20Counterfeit%20Colt%20M16A2%20Rifles%20and%20M203%20Grenade%20Launchers.pdf

[RobertEarl]

70. That's right

Again, you get it. As a society there are compromises that are made. We trade lives day in and day out for 'things'.

Such as it ever was. But we don't need to repeal the 2nd. The 2ndears just need to compromise.

On one extreme is: you can keep all your guns. In your house. Never to be seen on the streets unless you are part of a well regulated militia.

The other is to allow unlimited sized magazines. I'd say you are being pretty extreme. Oh well, some innocent kids will be killed just so you can wave your bam bams.

I see guns as an icon. And as a REAL iconoclast, I would like to see guns put, and kept in their place. Away from innocents. You obviously do not.

Don't shoot yourself, would be my advice. Have a happy bam bam day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. No. "Compromise" to you lot means "We'll only try to take away guns slowly,...

...because we think you're too dumb to notice what we're doing"

And as for compromising on enumerated Constitutional rights? There's been far too much of that over
the last 12 years or so. If you think it's acceptable when applied to "those people",
you might just find yourself "one of those people" someday.

And BTW, I don't own any guns, nor am I gay or lesbian. That's the thing about first
principles- they apply no matter what...

[Lost_Count]

87. Don't forget physical confiscation of 300 million that already exist ..

[spin]

83. True, firearms never are used for legitimate self defense....

and if they are, it would have been far better if the victim was unarmed and had to spend months in a hospital recovering from the injuries or ended up in a casket.

How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense?
By Paul Barrett December 27, 2012

***snip***

If guns have a countervailing benefit—that lawful firearm owners frequently or even occasionally use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones—then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition.

As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate....emphasis added
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

There is absolutely no doubt that all too often firearms are misused and tragedy results. That's one side of the debate. There is also no doubt that firearms can be and are used to stop violent attacks. That's the other side of the debate.

If you were a powerful sorcerer you might have the ability to develop a magic spell that would render all firearms, except those in the hands of authorities, inoperable in our nation. I have no doubt that if you waved your magic wand and the spell took effect, firearm crime would cease.

If so, the criminal element would not be all that concerned as they would simply attack the weaker members of our society without fear. (I suspect many criminals are strong gun control advocates. Firearms in the hands of honest citizens pose a significant workplace safety hazard for many in the violent criminal profession.)

But of course sorcery is a lost art in our modern society. There is no way that you could ban and confiscate all the firearms in our nation. Even if you managed to pass the necessary laws to do so, many citizens would simply refuse to comply. I have often heard of many people who fear that an attempt will be made to disarm America and have stored caches of weapons and ammunition just in case it might happen. (Of course I have never met such people.)

The solution is not to ban all guns. In my opinion the solution is for both sides of the debate to accept the fact that the argument of the other side has some validity and to work to find compromise that will help insure that firearm ownership in our nation is limited to honest, sane and responsible people as much as is possible. There is no way we can eliminate all gun violence in our nation but we could do far better than we are today.

I feel this will never happen as long as some on the gun control side insist the solution is to ban all firearms. I had great hope that we would see some real improvement to our national gun laws this year after the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The poison pill that ruined that possibility was the insistence by those in the gun control movement that we pass another assault weapons ban at the national level.

[hack89]

25. Smart election year politics - puts Christie on the spot. Nt

[joeybee12]

28. Outrageous! With all those traffic jams in NJ, one needs to shoot off

at least a few rounds!

[Token Republican]

31. This

is what would now be an assault weapon in NJ if the law is passed.

[img][/img]

The Marlin model 60 has been around since 1960 and is not new by any means. Its a 22 cal rimfire.

Decide for yourself why blood drenched gun humpers, as they are called here, no longer play the game of compromise.

If you want compromise, then compromise.

If you want a gradual ban, expect resistance. But don't be shocked when resistance is encountered.

Link to Pink Pistols, the Gay Gun Rights Group. A merging of left and right values.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. good.

[SecularMotion]

32. Only a paranoid gun nut would oppose this law.

[center][/center]

[Abq_Sarah]

34. And why is that?

Why is it you seem to view every single firearm owner as a lunatic gearing up to shoot children?

[SecularMotion]

36. Not every single firearm owner is a paranoid gun nut

But I think they are over-represented on DU.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Not every single gun control advocate is paranoid about gun owners

But I think they are over-represented on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. magazines. They want to take your over-capacity magazines.

I thought you gungeon dwellers were all fanatic about technical details, and here you are completely misrepresenting the situation.

Oh well, I had my hopes up on the whole confiscation thing, but I'll settle for a ban on high capacity magazines.

Gunners seem to be quite capable of transforming themselves into felons overnight without us confiscators getting involved at all.

[Token Republican]

37. Justify

Why anyone would need 10 round magazines.

I'd like to understand why you think anyone would need that many.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. was i unclear? i dont want one round magazines.

But ill settle for what I can get.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I'd like to thank you and your fellow Prohibitionists for coming clean about what you want

Those insincere pleas for "compromise" were getting a bit grating...

[Warren Stupidity]

43. what i want and what ill settle for are two different things.

I'll settle for reasonable regulations, like for example this law.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. The laws I support are also 'reasonable', yet conflict with what *you* want

It would appear then that describing something as 'reasonable' is begging the question...

[Warren Stupidity]

91. oh horseshit.

I'm sure you support "reasonable regulation", yet somehow no new law meets your lofty requirements for reasonableness. The NJ law is completely reasonable.

[Token Republican]

46. Thanks

I appreciate the honesty. We appear to be on completely opposite sides here, but I do appreciate your intellectual honesty.

Even though I disagree with your position, I'm open to discussion to better understand how you arrived at your conclusions, assuming of course the DU TOS is not violated. I know its a hot topic here.

Peace.

[SecularMotion]

47. For the record

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Token Republican]

49. The Record

For reference here's my record.

[SecularMotion]

55. You've already broken one of your rules by discussing guns.

Second Amendment - this is actually how I found the DU. I might contribute at some point, but I'd probably be banned. So I'll stay out of those discussions in the safe haven group.

I don't understand right-wingers who join DU because they "agree" with liberals on almost all issues, yet all they want to discuss here is the one issue they disagree with.

[Token Republican]

57. Nope

Actually this is the first time I've disagreed here.

I also said I wouldn't enter into the protected group. This is the GD.

If gun discussions are limited to anti gun talk only in the GD, please show me that in the TOS and I'll refrain from GD topics on that subject.

[SecularMotion]

61. We have our share of right wing gun nuts here.

They are banned more often than any other trolls.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. They disagree with you, therefore they're right wing. Suuure...

Frustration is making you a bit testy, eh?

[proudretiredvet]

80. You do like to go there when you are not doing well in a discussion.

You need to accept that there are pro second amendment liberals. You also need to accept that you do not get to define what a liberal is.

[SecularMotion]

82. You need to find a right wing discussion board that agrees with your radical right wing views

The pro-second amendment views you support come from the NRA and far right. There is no support for your views among Democrats or even moderate Republicans.

[proudretiredvet]

79. Look at what the cops carry.

Then ask them why they need that many rounds. Take that answer as if it were mine and then get back to me.

[proudretiredvet]

78. What standard are you citing?

I carried an M-16 based rifle for over two decades and have built and shot many AR platform rifles since then. The accepted standard and most often found magazine for these rifles are 20 round.
I do not know where you get your information or if you are just inventing it but it is not coming from the real gun world.

[Skip Intro]

45. That's what the "common sense gun control" push has been about all along.

The government does want your guns, despite lies to the contrary.

I'd love to see polls from CT on what the people of the state think on this issue, now, today.

The way they use those poor victims of the Newtown shooting to push laws that would have had no effect on that incident is about as tacky and transparent as you can get. This isn't about stopping "mass shootings." It's about disarming the populace, by small steps if the big steps are rejected, as they were last year. But it will fail here too. Hopefully the government won't dare the people to fight for their rights.

[Chan790]

52. We favor it...

well, except the 100 or so people who lost their jobs at gun manufacturers as a result of the law.

[Skip Intro]

56. Any links to polls?

I find it hard to believe the entire state is so willing to hand over their rights, to happily open their homes for inspection to a government who, with the stroke of a pen, will make many of them felons.

[Chan790]

60. You are aware of how liberal CT is, right?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=1859

By margins of 2-1 or more, Connecticut voters support most gun-control measures, with support for universal background checks at 93 - 6 percent, including 89 - 9 percent among voters in households where there are guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters support stricter statewide gun-control laws 66 - 30 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Support for specific measures includes:
68 - 28 percent back an expansion of the statewide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Gun owners are opposed 49 - 44 percent;
68 - 28 percent back a ban on the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. Gun owners are divided 49 - 48 percent;
72 - 27 percent back registration of all handguns, with annual renewal. Gun owners are divided with 48 percent in favor and 50 percent opposed;
63 - 31 percent, including 50 - 46 percent among gun owners, favor limiting handgun purchases to one per month;
85 - 14 percent, including 71 - 28 percent among gun owners, back a permit requirement to purchase and carry all guns;
86 - 11 percent, including 85 - 12 percent among gun owners, favor a gun offender registry for those convicted of gun crimes;
76 - 19 percent, including 65 - 32 percent among gun owners, back stricter gun storage requirements;
50 - 43 percent back mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, who oppose this measure 71 - 26 percent.

[Skip Intro]

62. Thanks.

Those are striking numbers. I do find it a bit chilling. I do see much of it as steps toward confiscation and it sure looks like something of that nature is in the offing.

It isn't that I don't mind some closing of loopholes in current laws, but what is this new law going to solve. This is in response to something exceedingly rare, and a fraction of a percent as far as gun crime in the US. How does this solve the real problem of gun violence in the US? It doesn't do anything but disarm the law-abiding.

Our history, the human history, has a few instances of this type of thing, government continually seeking to weaken the rights of the people, always with a singing choir of supporters who happily trade freedom for shiny words. It usually hasn't ended well for the common person.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Two words from you OP convinced me

that this is WONDERFUL NEWS!!

"children slain"

[bravenak]

84. Good news.

This is for the best.

[Katashi_itto]

85. Sounds good to me.

[laundry_queen]

86. Good. nt

[B Calm]

88. Great news! k&r

[Euphoria]

89. good to hear n/t

[NuclearDem]

90. Good, you don't need more than 10 anyway.

But still, IBTL.