search
top

Christie Vetos the Magazine Ban

From ANJRPC:

Today Governor Christie vetoed A2006 / S993, legislation (http://tinyurl.com/pxxpja3) that would have banned firearms magazines larger than 10 rounds and would have banned an entire class of popular .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles. The veto marks the end of the road for this legislation for the 2014-2015 session.
“After months of intense battle over this misguided legislation that won’t stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has heard the voice of the outdoor community and ended the discussion,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “The Governor clearly recognizes the difference between legislation that punishes violent criminals vs. legislation that targets the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

20 Responses to “Christie Vetos the Magazine Ban”

  1. Joethefatman™ says:

    Good

  2. Wayne H. says:

    Yup, it’s election year in New Jersey…

  3. I’m jaded enough to say he only vetod it because it would restricted off duty, and retired LEO’s…..

  4. Squall says:

    I’m jaded enough to say its only a temporary stay. The democrats will just being it up next year, or at the latest after Sweeney is “elected” governor.

  5. dwb says:

    Hope you’ll do a posting on PA HB 2398 that would undo most of what Lane wrought on reciprocal CCW permits. What are the chances this actually passes?

  6. Gilbert Stroud says:

    I guess he wants to stay in the running for President.

  7. Dano says:

    I thought he was going to just ignore it and let it become law. I guess he really wants to put tht oval body in the oval office.

  8. ASR says:

    Good for Christie. Standard Glock 19 mag remains legal.

  9. Whetherman says:

    I’m really pleased to see all the cynicism expressed above. I was expecting to see that Captain Cheeseburger had become an authentic pro-gun hero.

    I don’t know how long we can depend on pandering windbags as the tools to defend our rights, though.

    • Alpheus says:

      Although I generally want to keep my distance from New Jersey, and so I technically shouldn’t care about what goes on there, I’m always a little happy when gun rights advance, or in this case, when they don’t lose ground.

      Having said that, I don’t trust Christie on anything. I don’t know if he’s running for President, or thinks he needs the votes for Governor, or genuinely thinks the law is bad, and because of this, I merely sigh in relief when he vetoes a law like this. While I’m somewhat glad he’s New Jersey’s governor (hey, this is New Jersey, what do you expect?), I want him nowhere near the White House!

      Having said all this, if Christie is doing this because he’s thinking of runing for President, I think it’s a good sign that even he realizes that a bill like this would torpedo such an option.

  10. jerry says:

    Is Christie a staunch ally of the 2A? Of course not. Is he about the best that gun owners in New Jersey can hope for? Yep. Look fellas, I don’t live in New Jersey, so who the voters elect is none of my affair as long as their actions only affect New Jersey. However, if Sweeney or that tool Corzine were in office, this would now be the law in New Jersey. Take your wins were you can get them.

    • Yup. Don’t kid yourself that someone is our friend because they say so, but don’t stamp your feet and not vote because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Politics is the art of the possible, and almost always involves voting for the lesser of, or the less effective of, two evils.

      • ASR says:

        What Clayton said. Christie’s vetoes have some local political cost to him, he is governor of NJ, not ID; and they have some political benefits on the national stage.

        They basically suggest that while he’s not a conviction pro-gun politician, he is also not a conviction anti-gun politican. He knows this issue matters to potential political allies, and he is somewhat willing to deal.

        That’s far from optimal (he’s not among my favorite ’16 Republican contenders), but it could also be worse.

      • Whetherman says:

        The trouble is, to make a metaphor, “winning” a rear-guard action means only that you stayed alive, though of course that is worth a lot. But wars aren’t won by rear-guard actions. Strategically we are still in a position that can be best described as trying to hold out, while we wait for what would amount to some sort of undefined divine intervention, that we won’t know what it is until we see it.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Holding in anti-gun states denies the enemy momentum and credibility nationwide. It’s the antithesis to their PR “wins” in Target, et al.

          If they can’t pass mag restrictions in New Jersey, of all places, they look weak. That’s why the wins in Colorado for them were bigger than SAFE passing in NY. CO is perceived as ‘pro-gun’ so a win on our turf was a big deal.

          If we hold and make incremental gains in the anti-states (IL and CA carry) and keep expanding in pro-gun we win demographically and politically long-term. Pragmatist pols will do the math on the pro-gun vote.

top