Chris Christie Vetoes Proposed .50-Caliber Rifle Ban He Once Supported

[onehandle]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by hrmjustin (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Huffington Post

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed legislation on Friday that would have banned .50-caliber rifles from the state, despite backing the same proposal just months ago.

In April 2013, Christie recommended banning the sale of Barrett .50-caliber semi-automatic sniper rifles as part of a group of proposals to curb gun violence. On Friday, Christie said the ban wouldn't make the Garden State any more safe, according to Reuters.

"Tellingly, the legislature points to no instance of this class of firearms being used by even a single criminal in New Jersey," he said. "The wide scope of this total ban, therefore, will not further public safety, but only interfere with lawful recreational pastimes."

The Washington Post reports State Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D) called Christie’s veto “a failure in leadership" and a move meant to appease Republicans.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/chris-christie-vetoes-gun-ban_n_3772966.html

---

Two-faced pile of crap.

[malthaussen]

1. Probably knuckled under pressure from the gun lobby.

He's been such a bad boy lately, he had to throw his constituency a bone.

But just to play Devil's advocate for the nonce, why ban a 30-pound material-destroying rifle? It's not like anybody is going to use the thing to commit a crime.

-- Mal

[corkhead]

2. He determined it was what was best for Chris Christie - constituents be damned

[Grins]

3. "...(it) wouldn't make the Garden State any more safe.."

"Christie said the ban wouldn't make the Garden State any more safe, according to Reuters."

Would it make it any more dangerous?

[DhhD]

4. Campaign issue: supporting a huge war gun not needed for domestic protection.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. OK, I'm neither an escapee from the Gungeon nor a Christie apologist,

but these things are not exactly Saturday Night Specials. They weigh 30 lb & are pretty much useless except for two purposes: long-range target shooting and killing people out to about 2,000 yards (more than a mile!). They also cost close to $10k apiece, and the ammo for them is not exactly cheap.

Therefore they aren't the kind of weapon anyone would use in a holdup, a mass killing, or a bar fight. I imagine most of the people who own them are overweight Tea Party types who fantasize about paramilitary/militia nonsense, or maybe for the gun tower on their Ruby Ridge-style compound, but wouldn't be physically able to lug one of these things around to employ it for antisocial purposes without suffering cardiac consequences. They are, in other words, markers for excess testosterone but are kinda pointless.

Let the dumb shits put their money into crap like this if they want.

[Duckhunter935]

6. agreed

some will say you can shoot down a plane with them. You can do that with any hunting rifle now. To hit a moving target like a plane and bring it down would be nearly impossible. They have multiple engines and even if you were able to hit one I doubt it would bring it down. There must be tons of them being used for crime with all of this call for banning them, they only run about 10K and about 3 dollars a round. The .338 Lapua Magnum was the round used in the longest confirmed sniper shot. Should we ban all hunting rifles?

I believe this is also a conditional veto if the legislature makes the correction on confiscation of existing weapons, he will sign it for future weapons purchases.

[melm00se]

7. a few data points

cost: $3000 on up
Ammo: $4-5 per round
Length: 48 to 57 in

[bucolic_frolic]

8. What is there to shoot during a recreational pastime in New Jersey

that requires a .50-caliber semi-auto rifle?

Targets? Is it more thrilling to shoot with a wider bore? I have no idea.

[hrmjustin]

9. Looking-sorry but this a duplicate of this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014567668