New Jersey

Uncategorized

Another Bill That Chris Christie Needs To Veto

June 23, 2014 by 3 Comments

The list of ridiculous bills that the New Jersey Legislature has passed and that Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) needs to veto has grown again. In addition to the magazine ban bill this is sitting on his desk, there is now a bill that totally bans ivory or “ivory products”. This ban extends to 10,000 year old ivory from mammoth tusks.

Ivory products are more than carved elephant tusks. They would include things like the keys on older Steinway concert pianos, 150-year old whale scrimshaw, slabs and handles from knives, old billiard balls, and the grips on George Patton’s revolvers. Banning the transfer of ivory or ivory products at the state level does nothing to stop elephant poaching in Africa.

Knife Rights has issued a strongly worded alert on this bill. Reading through the bill myself, I agree that it is all encompassing and permits no real exceptions. It is a bill that ought to be vetoed.

In a move
that caught just about
everyone by surprise, last
week the New Jersey
legislature quietly passed
S.2012/A.3128,
a draconian total ivory ban
bill with no exemptions for
existing legal ivory and
that even bans
10,000-year-old mammoth
ivory. This
poorly drafted bill even
opens the door to outright
confiscation of
ivory-handled knives and
arrest of knife owners!
 
 

Knife
Rights unequivocally
supports legitimate
efforts to stop the
illegal slaughter of
elephants in Africa
,
but
this
bill will not save a
single elephant
.
Unfortunately,
instead of going after
poachers, smugglers
and traders of illicit
ivory, the New Jersey
legislature has
decided to launch an
all-out attack on
innocent New Jerseyans
by passing an absurd
TOTAL Ivory Ban
that
will not save a single
living elephant
.


Knife
Rights has asked Gov.
Christie to veto this
irrational and very
destructive bill. 
If
you are a New Jersey
resident or do business
in New Jersey, WRITE or
CALL the Governor TODAY
and ask him to VETO
S.2012/A.3128.
 


The NJ Ivory Ban Bill
outlaws ALL ivory from ANY
ANIMAL (elephant, hippo,
mammoth, narwhal, walrus,
whale, etc.). It makes it
illegal to to import, sell,
offer for sale, purchase,
barter or possess with
intent to sell (a
intentionally vague term of
law subject to abusive
interpretation that could
lead to knife confiscations
and arrests) any
ivory or ivory product with no
exceptions for antique or
heretofore legal ivory
imported decades ago prior to
the existing 24-year-old U.S.
ban on ivory imports.

This ban would
irreparably harm owners of
ivory-handled and fossil
ivory-handled knives,
antiques, musical instruments
and any items containing ivory
legally imported into this
country decades ago by
stripping their value – a
taking of millions of dollars
from law-abiding New
Jerseyans. The ban would
criminalize legitimate
business owners and cause
immediate ruinous financial
loss for them. It will
cost the state millions of
dollars in tax revenue and
not
save a single living
elephant! 

 

This
bill will not save a
single elephant
because study after study
have shown no connection
between the legal ivory
market in decades-old
ivory in the U.S. and
poaching in Africa. International
and U.S. studies
document that virtually
all the ivory poached in
Africa goes to China
where it is valued at 6
times the price of
decades-old legal ivory
in the U.S.
Moreover, it is already a
federal crime to import
ivory into the U.S. and a
crime to possess or sell
illegally imported ivory.
   

  
This outrageous
and draconian bill also
represents an unconstitutional
“taking” of
protected private property,
violating both the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and Article 1, #1
and #20 of the N.J.
Constitution.
While lawsuits
challenging this law, if
signed, wend their way though
the courts, untold hundreds or
thousands of ivory owners will
be arrested and prosecuted
under this absurd law.
  
NOTHING IN THIS
ABSURD BILL WILL SAVE A
SINGLE ELEPHANT!

This is “feel
good – do bad”
legislation at its
worst! 
 

New
Jersey residents and all
who do business in New
Jersey should WRITE or
CALL the Governor TODAY
and ask him to VETO S.2012/A.3128.

Email Governor
Christie at: Constituent.Relations@gov.state.nj.us
 
Call the Governor at: 609-292-6000

When you call or
write, all you need to do is
ask the Governor to VETO
S.2012/A.3128, the ivory Ban
Bill. If you’d like to write
more, click
here for Knife Rights’ NJ
Ivory Ban Model Letter to
Gov.
Christie.

Uncategorized

A Plea For Attention

May 20, 2014 by 1 Comment

The Brady Campaign and the other older gun prohibitionist groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) have been marginalized by Michael Bloomberg and his money. His Illegal Mayors, his merger with Shannon Watts and the Demanding Mommies, and his willingness to parachute legions of lobbyists into purple states like Colorado to get new laws imposed have created a far more dangerous foe to gun rights than the Brady Campaign.

It is within this context that we should examine the lawsuit brought yesterday in New Jersey by the Brady Campaign to force certification of the so-called “smart gun”. While it may be seen as a plea for attention, such pleas by a marginalized foe can be dangerous.


The lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to force NJ Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman to comply with the reporting requirements of the Personalized Handgun Law. By doing so, it could trigger the 3-year clock after which only “personalized handguns” may be sold in New Jersey. Unlike the California microstamping law which allows existing handguns on the California Handgun Roster to still be sold, there is no grandfathering in of existing handguns.

New Jersey is an anomaly in that its Attorney General is appointed and not elected. The Attorney General is appointed by the Governor and then confirmed by the NJ State Senate much like the US Attorney General. Mr. Hoffman, the Acting Attorney General, was appointed to the position when his predecessor was appointed to fill the US Senate seat held by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Politically, he is registered as an Independent. His law career has been primarily in the public sector with the bulk of it being as a trial attorney in the US Department of Justice Civil Division and as an Assistant US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Hoffman, while he was politically astute enough to get appointed Acting AG, seems to be more a bureaucrat than a politician.

The Brady Campaign sent Hoffman letters in February and in April noting that the Attorney General’s Office had failed to do its semi-annual reports on the availability of personalized handguns since 2003. The February letter mentioned the Armatrix iP1 pistol and asked that he file the requisite report with the Governor and Legislature affirming that it was available for sale. The April letter was a reminder and hinted of further action.

I have to believe that the Brady Campaign had the complaint written and ready to go when the time was right. It is no coincidence that the lawsuit was filed in Mercer County Superior Court the day after Ernst Mauch, designer of the Armatrix iP1 pistol, had an op-ed published in the Washington Post. Whether or not Herr Mauch colluded with the Brady Campaign on the timing is up for speculation but it certainly looks suspicious. The timeline of information requests presented in the complaint makes clear that the Brady Campaign and its affiliate NJ Million Moms (sic) had been planning this since 2013.

The complaint itself is rather straight forward with the exception of the recitation of accidental shootings by children with handguns. It basically says the Attorney General of NJ was supposed to be putting out semi-annual reports on personalized handguns (NJS 2C:58-2.3(c), the one report from 2003 could not be found, and that Deputy AG Bruce Solomon had affirmed that no report had been issued from 2004-2012. The complaint goes on to say that a dealer in California had offered a personalized handgun for sale and that a Maryland dealer had received one from the manufacturer. This is important to the case because of how the statute determines personalized handguns are available (NJS 2C:58-2.3(b)).

For the purposes of this section, personalized handguns shall be deemed to be available for retail sales purposes if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state. As used in this subsection, the term “production model” shall mean a handgun which is the product of a regular manufacturing process that produces multiple copies of the same handgun model, and shall not include a prototype or other unique specimen that is offered for sale.

The fact that the NJ Attorney General’s Office has screwed up by not issuing the semi-annual reports is a given. The question remains as to whether the so-called smart guns available in California or delivered to dealer in Maryland were actual production models or prototypes. The Attorney General’s Office, if it was smart and/or pressured to do so by Gov. Chris Christie, could issue the required report immediately, affirm that no “production models” were available for sale, that only specimens or prototypes had been delivered, and ask for the case to be dismissed as moot. Whether they are smart enough or politically agile enough to pull that off remains to be seen.

As I noted earlier, even a marginalized foe can be dangerous. This lawsuit shows that Brady Campaign, while losing in the court of public opinion, still is astute enough to have been planning this assault on gun rights for well over a year. It calls for an energetic response from our side.

Uncategorized

NJ Senate Votes On Mag Limitation And Gun Ban Tomorrow (updated)

May 12, 2014 by 8 Comments

The NRA-ILA sent out an alert advising that the New Jersey State Senate will vote on SB 993 tomorrow (Monday, May 12th) at noon. They are asking the people in NJ call or email their state senator and request that they vote against this bill.

From the NRA-ILA:

On Monday, May 12, the New Jersey Senate is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 993
at noon.  As previously reported, S.993 seeks to restrict the maximum
capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban certain
popular firearms.  Under the guise of public safety, anti-gun
politicians continue their efforts in Trenton to erode the Second
Amendment rights of New Jersey residents.  New Jersey is one of only a
few states which already has a magazine restriction, and another
arbitrary limit will have no impact on crime or criminals.  Instead,
this legislation demonstrably favors criminals who prefer to prey on
unarmed victims.


Senate Bill 993 is scheduled to be considered by the full Senate at noon on Monday, May 12.  It is more important than ever to call and e-mail your state Senator and respectfully, yet insistently, urge him or her to vote AGAINST S.993.  Contact information for state Senators can be found here.


If you would like to tune into the Senate debate on S.993, you can do so by clicking here.

The bill would exempt tube feed .22LR rifles from the 10 round maximum. It would also allow both current law enforcement officers to carry 15-round magazines while off-duty and it would extend this same “courtesy” to retired law enforcement officers.

The kicker part of the bill is this:

14. (New section) Any person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days from the effective date of this act. During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall:

a. Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

b. Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable; or

c. Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.1

UPDATED: Sebastian is reporting that the bill passed the NJ Senate on a 22-17 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Christie who has never been a friend of gun owners. However, he does have Presidential aspirations and this could help our cause. Now is the time to start pressuring him. His online contact address is here.

Uncategorized

Update On Drake Case

March 15, 2014 by 5 Comments



Drake v. Jerejian is the New Jersey case that is a challenge to their concealed carry permit requirements. The case started out a long while ago as Muller v. Maenza and Piszczatoski v. Maenza. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court in January.

On Friday, the state of New Jersey filed a brief opposing this petition to the Supreme Court. The state asserts that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case and that the Second Amendment does not preclude the state from requiring a justified need to issue a carry permit.

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

NJ AG OPPOSES SUPREME COURT
REVIEW OF NJ CARRY LAW

Today, the New Jersey Attorney General filed a brief in the Drake right to carry case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the case. Drake is the pending federal challenge to New Jersey’s unconstitutional carry law, brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the idea that citizens should not have to prove “need” to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right. New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard requires the applicant to provide evidence of prior attacks or threats before a carry permit is issued by a judge – a virtually impossible standard for most people to meet.

Though less extreme in its rhetoric than in earlier phases of the case, the Attorney General in the brief essentially defends New Jersey’s carry law and tells the Supreme Court there is no reason for it to hear the case:

“[T]he Second Amendment does not prohibit New Jersey from requiring applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need before granting a permit to publicly carry a handgun. The justifiable need standard in New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee… Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Third Circuit’s decision here presents a question that warrants this Court’s discretionary review.”

While it is not unusual for an attorney general to defend state law, it is unfortunate to see such a blatant violation of fundamental rights be given legitimacy by bureaucrats.

“The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, otherwise known as right to carry, has long been disparaged and denied in the Garden State,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “We intend to change that with this lawsuit.”

“This case is extremely important because it may have a national impact on gun rights in all 50 states,” said SAF Executive Vice President and founder Alan Gottlieb. “This suit is part of our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

The Supreme Court will likely decide whether it will take the Drake case between April and June. We will spare no effort or expense to restore right to carry in the Garden State and protect that right all across America.

Uncategorized

Technology Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Trump The Second Amendment

November 21, 2013 by 2 Comments

The Wall Street Journal had an article today about the development of so-called smart guns and how this may trigger a decade old law in New Jersey. In 2002 New Jersey passed a law saying that within three years after a so-called smart gun is available for sale on the US market and that the state’s Attorney General has certified it as reliable, then all new handguns sold there must have that technology.

BATFE has approved the German-made iP1 Pistol by Armatix for importation into the US and it is expected to hit the market by the end of the year. It has also be certified for California’s handgun roster. The iP1 pistol uses a RFID chip which requires communication with a special watch. In addition, the “Intelligun” from Kodiak Industries in Utah which uses a fingerprint-scan is also about to come to market.

“The technology is here,” said Nicola Bocour, a director at Ceasefire NJ, a gun-violence (sic) prevention group. “Apple is using biometrics with its smartphones. Guns are next.”

Backers of New Jersey’s law and signed by then-Gov. James McGreevey hope it would cut down on suicides and firearms accidents, especially those involving children. “Our thought was that the bill, if passed, would save lives every year, without infringing anyone’s rights,” said Stephen Teret, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University who helped New Jersey craft the law.

The New Jersey law specifically exempts law enforcement from having to use personalized guns. If the law’s authors thought the technology not reliable enough for law enforcement use, then why is it considered good enough for the public?

Professor Teret is quite mistaken if he thinks this law doesn’t infringe “anyone’s rights”. The technology isn’t free. The iP1 Pistol costs $1,400 while the Intelligun grips from Kodiak cost $399. How is requiring a citizen to pay for expensive technology in order to exercise an enumerated right not an infringement? Did not the US Supreme Court say in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that a poll tax infringed upon the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? How, pray tell, is requiring expensive technology, which may or may not work, not the functional equivalent of a poll tax?

I won’t get into the downsides of the technology which I think are numerous or the adverse self-protection potentialities of it. I would point to a recent poll that states a wide majority of Americans oppose the technology and doubt its reliability. This is a technology that, in my opinion, has limited use and is not one that I’d stake my life upon.

Uncategorized

On Today’s Legislative Calendar For Gun Rights

May 30, 2013 by

Legislative sessions across the country are slowly coming to a close and with it come votes on gun rights issue. There will be important votes today in both Illinois and New Jersey.

The Illinois Senate will be voting on a number of bills that impact gun rights. Perhaps the most important one will be on their version of a concealed carry law. The bill is HB183 Gun Safety and Responsibility Act and is sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago). It is opposed by the NRA, ISRA, and Illinois Carry. The bill is much weaker than SB2193 that passed the State House last week and it preserves home-rule on firearms issues.

The other bills coming up include SB851 Safety Tech sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), SB1002 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), and SB1003 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago). Raoul’s SB851 includes both universal background checks and a lost or stolen reporting requirement. Kotowski’s SB1002 is a magazine ban bill with an exception for movie and TV productions. Finally, Munoz’s SB1003 increases penalties for firearms violations – even unintentional. All of these bills are opposed by Illinois Carry and ISRA.

The Illinois Senate is scheduled to go into session at 11am Central.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Senate will be taking up a number of bills that either ban certain firearms or curtail Second Amendment rights. They go into session at 2pm Eastern.

From the Outdoor Wire on S. 2723 and S. 2178:

Senate Bill 2723 — This omnibus bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney includes many different gun control sections which will impact retailers and gun owners throughout the state. It suspends Second Amendment rights if one does not have proof of firearms training, including for all current handgun owners; imposes a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases; bans all private sales of firearms; effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales.

Senate Bill 2178 — Sponsored by state Senators Raymond Lesniak (D-20) and Barbara Buono (D-18), this bill is a flat-out statewide gun ban on possession of .50 caliber firearms. The current version was amended to make this bill effective immediately upon enactment.

Other bad bills include S. 2485 which bans anyone who is on the No-Fly list from having either a firearms ID card or a pistol purchase permit and S. 2467 which mandates divestiture in gun companies by the state pension system.

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society issued an alert yesterday on these and other bills. It can be found here and gives contact information.

If you are a resident of either state, I’d urge you to contact your state senators as well as senate leadership to register your opposition to these bills.

UPDATE: In what may come as no surprise, the New Jersey Senate passed all the gun control bills before it. Sebastian has the whole story here. One needs only to see this video to understand the disdain those in power in the Garden State hold both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. If the State Trooper’s shirt had been either brown or black, you’d have sworn a time machine had transported you to the era of the Third Reich.

No word yet on any grand compromise from Illinois on concealed carry.

Uncategorized

I, For One, Wouldn’t Miss The Old SOB

April 8, 2013 by 3 Comments

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) had previously announced that he planned to retire at the end of his term in 2014. However, if this article from Politico is accurate, he doesn’t plan to return to the Senate this coming week – or maybe ever.

On Friday night, with the Senate still in recess, Lautenberg released a statement announcing he would be out next week. Lautenberg did not make clear any return date.

“I regret that I will not be returning to Washington next week as I continue treatment for, and recuperate from, muscle weakness and fatigue. My physician continues to advise me to work from home and not travel at this time,” Lautenberg said in a statement issued by his office.

Lautenberg added: “I am disappointed I will not be present for the opening of the debate on gun legislation in the Senate. It is an issue I am deeply passionate about, and my victories over the gun lobby are among my proudest accomplishments. I am, however, gratified that my legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines will be one of the key amendments offered to this bill.”

I’m not disappointed nor do I think anyone who believes in the Second Amendment is going to be disappointed if Lautenberg never returns.

The Politico article goes into the timing of a potential early retirement. If Lautenberg retires before late August, an interim senator would be appointed to serve until November 2013 at which time a special election would held. If it goes beyond that time, the interim senator would serve out the remainder of the term. It is presumed that Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) would appoint a Republican to serve as the interim senator. That said, if the Republican senator holds similar views on guns to that of Christie, it would be no gain for gun rights.

H/T Todd

Uncategorized

From The NJ Second Amendment Society

February 15, 2013 by

The New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee held hearings yesterday on 23 gun control bills and the pushed all of the bills out of committee to the full house. As the release below from the NJ Second Amendment Society makes clear, it was the intention of the committee chairman that all of these bills would pass his committee.


NJ LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE PUSHES THROUGH ANTI FREEDOM BILLS DESPITE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION

By Rich Petkevis
NJ2AS Media Relations
press@nj2as.com

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013, the New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee heard testimony on 24 anti freedom bills. Approximately 500 liberty minded people showed up to testify against these bills, however only about 200 actually made it into the State House. The other 300 were forced to stay outside during the hearings. Around a half dozen people were on hand to testify in favor of the proposed legislation.

The day started with Committee Chair ASM Charles Mainor declaring all bills would move out of committee and into the general assembly. This bold statement set the tone for the day. As the hearing got under way, it was evident that the chairman and the majority of the committee had no plans on listening to any of those who testified against the bills. The first two pieces of legislation were then hurried through, and only 5 people allowed to testify on each. It was brought to the attention of ASM Mainor that more than 5 people wanted to testify on these bills, and explained that people were told to write “testify on all” instead of individually listing each bill when registering for the day. ASM Mainor then offered to allow testimony after the committee voted on the bills, further insulting the majority of the crowd. The reaction of the crowd forced Mainor to allow people to testify on all the bills, then voting would happen at the end of the day.

Several members of the NJ2AS, ANJRPC, various Tea Party organizations, and other liberty minded citizens came up to testify. People were told there was a two minute time limit, however anyone who went up to speak in favor of the rights restricting legislation were pretty much allowed to talk as long as they wanted. Anyone testifying against the bills were held strictly to the two minute time limit. Toward the end of the day, a Navy Veteran stood up to testify, and called out ASM Mainor for not listening to her being he was having a sidebar conversation when she tried to speak. Mainor quickly shouted back at her, “I am going to conduct my meeting my way, your time is up” drawing much anger from the crowd.

It was a long day, and all of the bills left committee and are headed to the NJ general assembly for vote sometime next week. There was one bill that stood to protect the privacy of NJ firearms owners, A3788 which exempts firearms records from NJ’s open public records law.

NJ2AS urges all freedom loving, liberty minded citizens who oppose this legislation to call, email, and fax New Jersey’s elected members of the Legislature and urge them to vote NO on these bills.

New Jersey gun bills introduced since January 1, 2013 can be found at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/newjersey.

The committee chairman, Assemblyman Charles Mainor, is also Detective Mainor of the Jersey City Police Department. It would be interesting to know if he acts as much like thug when he’s on the streets of Jersey City as he does in running his committee.

Uncategorized

A Look At Gun Prohibitionists In State Legislatures

February 13, 2013 by

After my post on gun control legislation in Minnesota and its impact on jobs in that state, I started looking at the legislators who were sponsoring this legislation. Other than the fact that they were all Democrats, or as they are called in Minnesota – Democrat-Farmer-Labor, they had another similarity. They had made their careers, for the most part, in the public sector. Some, like Rep. Alice Hausman and Rep. Phyllis Kahn, even listed their occupation as “Legislator”. Look at the list below of the sponsors of HF 241 which is Minnesota’s version of an assault weapons (sic) ban.

Rep. Alice Hausman
(DFL-St. Paul)
Legislator/fmr Teacher
Rep. Frank Horstein
(DFL-Minneapolis)
Community Organizer
Rep. Erik Simonson
(DFL-Duluth)
Asst Fire Chief
Rep. Jim Davnie
(DFL-Minneapolis)
Financial Educator
Rep. Linda Slocum
(DFL-Richfield)
Teacher
Rep. Rena Moran
(DFL-St. Paul)
Parent Leader Coord.
Rep. Raymond Dehn
(DFL-Minneapolis)
Sustainability
Consultant
Rep. JoAnn Ward
(DFL-Woodbury)
Retired Teacher
Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis)
Legislator/University
Research Assoc.

This made me wonder if the sponsors of gun control legislation in other states shared the similar characteristics of being primary from the public sector. With hearings on gun control legislation in Colorado and New Jersey scheduled for this week, I looked at those two states in particular.

Yesterday, the Colorado House held their hearing on some particularly onerous bills. According to the reports I’ve read, the legislators in question had their minds made up and weren’t really there to listen. Lets look at the list of sponsors for these bills as well as the sponsors for their State Senate counterparts.

Rep. Lois Court (D-Denver)
Community College Instructor
Rep. Crisanta Duran (D-Denver)
Attorney
Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver)
Legislator
Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Arapahoe)
Legislator
Rep. Randy Fischer (D-Larimer)
Consulting Eng.
Rep. Mike Foote (D-Boulder)
Attorney
Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder)
Ret. Gov’t Affairs
Rep. Claire Levy (D-Boulder)
Attorney
Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver)
Legislator
Rep. Jovan Melton (D-Arapahoe)
Consultant
Rep. Dominick Moreno (D-Adams)
Legislator
Rep. Dan Pabon (D-Denver)
Eng./Attorney
Rep. Cherylin Peniston (D-Adams)
Ret. Teacher
Rep. Paul Rosenthal (D-Arapahoe)
Teacher
Rep. Su Ryden (D-Arapahoe)
Legislator
Rep. Joseph Salazar (D-Adams)
Civil Rights Attorney
Rep. Sue Schafer (D-Jefferson)
Educator/Small Bus. Owner
Rep. Angela Williams (D-Denver)
Business Owner
Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-Arapahoe)
Attorney-Disability Law
Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder)
Legislator/Ret. Pres of Johns Manville Corp
Sen. Mary Hodge (D-Adams)
Property Mgmt/fmr. Teacher

Looking over this list, you can see that with few exceptions, the gun prohibitionists come out of the public sector. The only real notable exception on this list is Sen. Rollie Heath of Boulder County who had a significant business career culminating in his being President of building products company Johns Mansville.

Let’s move on to New Jersey where the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is holding hearings today on a whole host of gun control proposals. Are the proponents of gun control legislation in New Jersey any different than in Minnesota and Colorado? The answer is yes and no. The “no” comes from the fact that they are all Democrats and that they mostly come from the public sector. What makes New Jersey different are the number of actively serving law enforcement officers that are State Assemblymen proposing this legislation. To me this seems like an outrageous conflict of interest but I don’t live in the state of New Jersey and know their local political customs.

Assemblyman Joseph
Cryan (D-Union)
Undersheriff
Assemblyman Jason O’Donnell (D-Bayonne)
Dir. Of Public Safety
Assemblywoman Mila Jasey (D-Maplewood)
Legislator
Assemblywoman Annette Quijano (D-Elizabeth)
Mun. Prosecutor
Assemblyman Sean Connors (D-Jersey City)
Detective/Police Officer
Assemblyman Gordon Johnson (D-Teaneck)
Consultant/Fmr Sheriff
Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle
(D-Englewood)
Funeral Director
Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Madison)
Attorney
Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman
(D-Trenton)
Legislator
Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-Jersey City)
Detective/Police Officer

Summing this up, if you look at just who is proposing the gun control legislation, it is Democrats who tend to have worked their entire lives in the public sector and fed at the public trough. I shouldn’t find this surprising as the hallmark of all of this type of legislation is the constraint on liberties and the bureaucratic minutiae that their implementation will entail. Is not that the ethos of the modern public service to a tee?

UPDATE: I wrote this before listening to Michael Bane’s Down Range Radio podcast. The first segment of the podcast is instructive as to why you are seeing legislators from a public sector background pushing the gun control agenda so strongly. Those of us in the gun culture are a threat to them and their progressive agenda. It isn’t due to our guns but rather our attitudes towards hard work, self reliance, independence, and libertarianism. Hard working, self reliant, independent people are less dependent upon government largesse and less likely to buy into a common good as proclaimed by the progressive elites.

Michael mentions two articles that take this a bit further. First, there is an article in Human Events which talks about the gun culture versus the culture of dependency. The second is by Andrew Klavan writing about Christopher Dorner and the left’s use of violence. Both of these articles are relatively short and worth the time to read. The more we understand our enemies and their hate towards us, the better we can tailor our fight to preserve our rights.

Uncategorized

Oh, Noes!

December 8, 2012 by 2 Comments

In an anti-gun editorial today in the Herald News of Woodland Park, New Jersey, the editors urge Gov. Chris Christie to unite with governors of other states to make it tougher to purchase firearms. They say it won’t be an easy task as they express their dismay about pro-rights moves by other states.

We realize it’s no easy task. Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed a law last
year to allow people to carry concealed weapons into bars and other
places that serve alcohol, joining Arizona and Tennessee. Gov. Bobby
Jindal of Louisiana signed a law in 2010 allowing guns into houses of
worship. North Dakota, Texas, Maine and a raft of other states allow
employees to bring a gun to work as long as it stays locked in the car.
The Wisconsin Senate now allows members to carry guns on the floor,
while the state Assembly allows guns in the public viewing galleries.

The thought that some states actually recognize that law enforcement can’t be everywhere and realize that responsible citizens should be allowed to provide for their own self-protection is beyond comprehension to them. It shouldn’t be given that they just had a cop in that town indicted yesterday on attempted sexual assault on underage girls but it is.