New Jersey Democrats Pass 22 Gun Control-Bills

bluestang41505

Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
398
Location
Deltona, Fl
New Jersey Democrats pass 22 gun-control bills, Republicans criticize decision:burn:

"Among the measures adopted by the New Jersey Assembly to change New Jersey's gun laws, bills would:

Reduce the maximum capacity of magazines to 10 rounds, as also proposed in federal legislation. New Jersey already has a 15-round cap. Retired police officers would be exempt from the reduction.

Ban online sales of weapons and ammunition, requiring all ammunition and weapon sales to be face-to-face. It was sponsored in response to the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, where authorities said the shooter amassed an arsenal of ammunition and explosives from purchases he made over the Internet.

Require background checks on private sales of handguns, rifles, or shotguns through a licensed retail dealer. Transactions between immediate family members, law enforcement officers and licensed collectors would be exempt.

Require submission of certain mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a submission not considered mandatory under current law.

Establish a 180-day prohibition, up from 30 days, on handgun purchases for those convicted of failing to report loss or theft of firearm.

Require a firearms safety training class as a condition to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm and a firearm purchaser ID card. Applicants who have law enforcement or military weapons training could substitute their experience for the class.

Require that firearms purchaser ID cards display a picture and be renewed every five years. Cards under existing law do not display a picture and do not expire. Gun purchasers must obtain both a firearms purchaser ID card and a permit to purchase a firearm.

Exempt firearms records from the state's open records law. The bill clarifies ambiguity in existing law that does not firmly state rules about access to these records. The bill was sponsored in response to a New York newspaper's publication of a map locating firearm permit-holders, which sponsors said they would not want to see happen in New Jersey.

Ban individuals convicted of any of more than 30 different types of crimes from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms.

Prohibit the state Treasury from investing any assets of pensions or annuity funds in companies that manufacture, import, or sell assault firearms for civilian use. The bill exempts investments in companies that manufacture, import, or sell assault firearms for use by the military or law enforcement agencies.

Prohibit handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armor.

Revise definition of a destructive device to include a ban on certain weapons that are .50-caliber or higher. It does not affect certain shotguns and shotgun ammunitions used for sporting purposes of that caliber, as well as antique firearms, antique handguns, muzzleloader rifles, and certain black powder muzzleloaders would also be exempt.

Prohibit a person named on the consolidated federal terrorist watch list from obtaining a firearm by disqualifying him or her from being issued a firearms ID card or a permit to purchase a handgun.

Allow the attorney general to seize firearms in the possession of people deemed by a mental health professional to be a threat to themselves or others.

Establish a 90-day period for a person to dispose of a weapon owned illegally. The legislation would assure that owners of any weapon or magazines that become illegal under a change in New Jersey law have time to dispose of the weapon or ammunition.

Require law enforcement agencies to report information relating to seized firearms to a database available to all law enforcement agencies. The information is meant to determine if any of the firearms were reported lost or stolen or are connected to any crimes. It also would determine the weapon's original purchaser. The bill is similar to one in the federal gun control package.

Establish a 15-member task force to study issues of school safety.

Authorize municipalities to establish weapon-free zones around schools, day-care centers, public housing facilities, and public buildings such as libraries and museums. It would encompass areas that are 1,000 feet around a school, college, or university. The bill only targets those found unlawfully carrying a weapon, not people who obtained their firearms legally.

SOURCE: Associated Press
 

Silverstrike

It's to big to move FAST!
Established Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
8,653
Location
Here/there/some other silly place
Again I see where all these blue states are going to take a major hit in the population into negative growth.


Just keep sqeezing you'll eventually will run out of money as your tax base collapse in on itself.

New York is already experiancing this first hand now.
 

Mr. Mach-ete

Liberals Suck
Established Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
12,801
Location
DelMarVa
Just about every new law stated above has been in effect in Maryland for many years. If you think those are tough Maryland is going more radical than that. They're talking about a total ban on any and all semi auto weapons period. Pump shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers will be the only firearms anyone will be allowed to own.
 

NinjaBum

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
2,016
Location
Albuquerque, NM
So how does the mental health thing work? Would they only keep schizos from having them, or would they attempt to keep all these veterans with deployment related ptsd or depression from having them?
 

OCSnk

NowIESnk
Established Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,429
Location
OC
Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

-- Michael Connelly, J.D.

Disturbing Report: Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms... Developing... | RedFlagNews.com



These Veterans will still own weapons, they'll just do it like the Gang Bangers do. I honestly am ashamed of this government who would percieve Vets as a "threat". But it is what it is.:nonono:
 

jshen

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
3,858
Location
GA
Are these not Ex Post Facto laws..in vio. of (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) of the Constitution?
 

Torch10th

I make hits
Established Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
7,408
Location
Evans, Colorado
Are these not Ex Post Facto laws..in vio. of (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) of the Constitution?

A few of them would seem to be. Especially in regards to magazine limits. If you're currently in possession of a magazine that is legal and they make it illegal and are not providing some sort of grandfather, that is likely ex post facto.

I'm not a lawyer though, so I may be interpreting that incorrectly.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top