search
top

Gov Christie isn’t done with the 2A

Hot off the ANJRPC’s presses:

Christie Vetoes Seek Shall-Issue Carry & Clean Repeal of Smart Gun Mandate!

Wednesday August 24, 2016: 

In a blockbuster announcement today, Governor Christie conditionally vetoed two pieces of anti-gun legislation (A3689 and S816), imposing dramatic conditions that would change them into pro-gun measures establishing shall-issue right-to-carry and repealing New Jersey’s 2002 “smart gun” law mandate with no strings attached.

That’s interesting. I mean, it’s certainly a push-back against his political enemies, and an indication that he’s not going quietly off the national political stage, but it also means he’s making a bet that a bold move now will be remembered in 4 years.

26 Responses to “Gov Christie isn’t done with the 2A”

  1. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Gotta give him credit. He was pretty anti-gun early on, but now has changed his tune. We have to rewards those who do come around.

  2. Whetherman says:

    “. . .it also means he’s making a bet that a bold move now will be remembered in 4 years.”

    I’m sure that Christie has more than a little self-interest in his calculations, but I suspect a call has gone out to all notable Republicans to make dramatic gestures to the base that may pay off with some loyalty come November 8, both up and down ticket.

    I would be more impressed with dramatic gestures two months after an election, than I am with dramatic gestures two months before. I don’t know what the chances are for Christie’s “conditions”, but my guess is they are vanishingly small, meaning they are only gestures.

    Thanks for the veto, though.

  3. Publius says:

    It seems that he’s learned something from Mr. Trump.

  4. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    Is Christie a true believer? Of course not. But neither are 95% of pro-gun Republicans, so let’s get that out of the way.

    Regardless of his intentions, he just put himself out there and called for NJ to become shall-issue. Just the news of that happening would be huge for us.

    Is it going to happen? Sounds like it won’t, considering the legislature has to accept his conditions, but hey, put it back on them to keep the corrupt permitting system and explain why women get gunned down in their driveways waiting for the permission to protect themselves from estranged boyfriends.

    • Whetherman says:

      “Is Christie a true believer? Of course not. But neither are 95% of pro-gun Republicans…”

      Gee, you’d never guess that from their rhetoric, wouldja?

      • Ian Argent says:

        I’m coming to the conclusion I don’t want True Believers in Congress. It interferes with being able to function politically.

        I want someone who will listen to their constituents, balance their needs and wants, and deliver least-bad compromises.

        • Whetherman says:

          Fine. I just want them to make that clear. I’m sick of True Believers while they’re campaigning, converting to “pragmatism” once they’re elected.

          I’m also sick of people who claim to be True Believers in my issue, to get my vote, but who are actually True Believers in 1. Pro-Life, 2. Banning abortion, and 3. Pro-Life. And, who are willing to trade away my issue to get 1, 2, or 3.

          • Ian Argent says:

            That second paragraph is why I’m Debbie Downer on True Believers. Anything is acceptable in pursuit of your True Belief

  5. Brad says:

    One heck of a turn around for Mr. AW ban.

  6. Chas says:

    We shall see. Could be just a cynical ploy that he knows has no chance of success, and maybe even arranged in advance to fail. Just posturing, or real leadership?
    I am inclined to believe that what a governor wants, a governor gets, so I’m putting it on Christie, to deliver for us or get off the political stage.

    • Ian Argent says:

      There’s some background to this. The original, anti-gun, bills were a response to Governor Christie using his executive power to define the phrase “justifiable need” as loosely as possible under the existing laws. The legislature had a cow, they passed a bill to more tightly define “justifiable need.” That bill, the Governor “conditionally vetoed,” which means he told the legislature, “if you make these changes, I will sign.” The changes being not just loosening, but actually removing, “justifiable need.”
      So he actually not just called, but raised, in the game of politics.

      Of course, he is the lamest of ducks at this point, so he has no short term consequences for playing hardball, but by the same token, he has no short term gain for it either.

      • Whetherman says:

        ” he has no short term gain for it either.”

        See my comment above about election year benefits for his party. I’m sure his future depends on having remained a team player.

        • Ian Argent says:

          Governor Christie is currently on the outs with the main GOP. Far enough out that this isn’t going to buy him any short-term gain there either.

          (appearing to have buddied up to, in order, Obama, then Trump, will do that.)

    • Archer says:

      I am inclined to believe that what a governor wants, a governor gets, so I’m putting it on Christie, to deliver for us or get off the political stage.

      Only if you live in a dictatorship. In America – even in NJ – the Governor can only impose conditions on the legislature before signing a bill. The legislature can take them (giving the Gov what he wants) or leave them (giving both nothing). In a heavily-blue state with a Republican governor, like NJ, it tends toward the latter. The governor has little control over the legislature. Which really is as it should be.

      Christie gave us a veto on anti-gun crap. If he can turn it around and make it an advancement for gun rights, that’s fantastic, but halting their further abridgement is already a victory.

      • Andy Barniskis says:

        I am inclined to believe that what a governor wants, a governor gets. . .

        That sure was true in 1995. Tom Ridge wanted gun control, and Pennsylvania got it.

        • Archer says:

          I imagine the PA Legislature decided they wanted gun control, too. Otherwise Tom Ridge wouldn’t have gotten anything.

          Oregon’s former governor John Kitzhaber wanted gun control, but the Dems couldn’t get a majority vote in the Legislature, so he did not get it. (Gov Kate Brown got gun control, but that was after the election, when the Dems were able to get their majority.)

          • Andy Barniskis says:

            “I imagine the PA Legislature decided they wanted gun control, too.”

            It was a heavily Republican legislature that many had just joined thanks to the Republican Revolution of 1994. The NRA had gone balls-out to get Ridge elected, despite many of our protests that he had voted for the Clinton AWB while in congress. The NRA dubbed the gun control package “The Sportsmens Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill.”

            In June of 1995 I was making desperate phone calls to my Republican state rep to resist the package. He told me to relax and sit back, because no gun legislation was going to pass that year. He said that one week before he voted for the package.

  7. Patrick says:

    Sorry, but I woke up in a good mood this morning. I hate to be the non-cynic, but is it possible that while running for the GOP nod Cristie actually learned something from the people he wanted to represent?

    He stepped out of NJ and spent a lot of time with people in what we sarcastically dub “free America”. Maybe, (just maybe) he saw how we view his world and learned a few things.

    I’ve seen it happen up close and personal. There is a reason the other side believes discourse is shouting and not listening. I can give concrete examples of times when pols I have worked with softened their anti-gun tune when they dug into the issue. And they helped when the time came.

    Christie won’t be pres and he knows it; he has also secured his future in any possible Trump admin. Calling for shall-issue won’t help him much anywhere (except maybe a judicial nod).

    But I will maintain my good humor and suggest that maybe this is him responding to the things he learned from us. Give ourselves some credit where it’s due. We did good.

  8. Stretch says:

    Christie is doing this for one and only one reason. To look good before the Confirmation Committee when Trump appoints him Atty. General.

  9. HSR47 says:

    Call me cynical, but I also believe that Christie is doing this to enhance his credentials sufficiently to get appointed to some sort of Federal office.

    Given his background and credentials, likely positions include USAG and SCOTUS Justice. On the whole, my bet is on the latter.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Not in the near term – he doesn’t need to enhance his cred with Trump, and Hillary wouldn’t have him anyway. 4-8 years is a long time in politics.

      • Patrick says:

        I think it’s what Stretch said: make it easier for the Senate GOP to confirm. The gun thing wouldn’t matter for AG, but definitely for an appellate nomination.

        I’d still like to believe he learned some history and had a change of heart. Then again, I’d also like to believe in Santa Claus.

        So until some fat man breaks into my house to leave me cool guns at night, I think Stretch has a point. If that fan man happens to be Christie breaking in to leave me a cool gun, he’d totally score my vote.

top