search
top

A Case Against One-Gun-A-Month

New Jersey Assemblywoman Joan Quigley asked the question:

I introduced that bill in the spring of 2006. If it had actually become law on the day it was introduced, Mr. Braico would have been able to accumulate 33 handguns between then and now. I fail to see how that’s an unreasonable restriction on his civil rights. And I do wonder what he might have done with all those deadly weapons.

An intrepid gun owner in The Garden State provides her with an answer:

When I first bought my XD-40 handgun, it was quite a large caliber, and so expensive to use for target practice. As my self-defense instructor told me, a large caliber is necessary for “stopping power” in self-defense situations. However, I immediately bought a smaller, inexpensive weapon – a .22-caliber Browning Buckmark – for target practice, just to save money. There, already, were two guns in one month.

However, both of those guns were too large for my wife to operate, so we bought a Lady Smith revolver, which is specially designed for the smaller hands of a woman. At that time, we discovered that the XD-40 jams quite a lot (a design flaw, I believe, but certainly a problem in a self-defense situation), so we bought a large Ruger six-shooter as a more reliable alternative to the XD-40.

The point is we bought more than one per month, for good reason.

I would say if the XD-40 jams a lot, it’s either a specific problem with the gun, or his wife is limp wristing it.  The XD line are generally pretty reliable from what I’ve heard.  But it’s a great way to point out why the one gun a month issue is a problem.  The burden should be on the people advocating it to prove it reduces crime, of which there is currently no evidence whatsoever.

Hat Tip to Cemetery’s Weblog

9 Responses to “A Case Against One-Gun-A-Month”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    The unreasonableness comes from the fact that if I buy 100 guns a month or 1 gun a month, it doesn’t have any impact on me as a law abiding citizen. If I’m going to commit a crime, the best I could do is two guns in my hands. With enough practice, switching magazines is faster than switching firearms so even trying to stretch it to “He could use many guns in a crime at the same time” doesn’t fly.

    It’s just as unreasonable as saying someone should be limited to the number of words they can publish in the newspaper to “ensure they do not waste their words and force them to fact check their stories”. Or, limiting the number of times you’re allowed to use the 4th amendment each month. I mean, if the police need to search your house more than once a month, why bother with due process and all?

    The biggest gripe I have is that the anti’s are basically saying, anyone who would buy more than one firearm a month from a store where they’ll have to get a background check run on them is probably a criminal.

  2. Nick says:

    Strange. My XD-40 tactical rarely, if ever jams. Even then it’s only because it doesn’t like one specific brand of ammo. Even then, it operates 99.9% fine with that ammo, it only jams if the feed ramp is dirty.

  3. kaveman308 says:

    How do you enfore a “one gun a month” law without at the very least partial registration?

    If I go into store X and buy a pistol, the NICS check is destroyed within 24 hours. I can then go into store Y and buy another gun and noone’s the wiser.

    This is just an incremental step. Once it passes, they’ll demand registration to close this obvious “loophole.”

  4. Sebastian says:

    You can’t, but you have to get permission from the police to buy a handgun in New Jersey in the first place, so it’s not hard to track.

  5. Robb Allen says:

    I could see them simply storing a number of “guns purchased this month”. But is that every 30 days? 31 other months? Do you get a break for Feb? What about leap years?

    Kaveman is right – It’s an incremental thing. Eventually, you won’t need more than 1 a quarter. Then, nobody will need more than a rifle a month. Eventually, the state will say “You already HAVE a firearm, why do you need another?”

  6. kaveman308 says:

    That’s what England does, sorta.

    There, even though you can still have long guns, I’ve read that say, if you already have a gun chambered for .308, there’s a hella lot of red tape to “justify” buying another firearm in that same caliber.

    The justification? You don’t need another .308, you already have one.

    Everything is incremental.

    P.S. I find it difficult enough to keep up on just a few states’ laws(those I’m likely to travel to), my store X and store Y example is geared more for a federal “one gun a month” thingie.

    If NJ is going to set the example for this going forward, God help us. I just learned today that hollow points are illegal in NJ.

  7. kaveman308:

    Interesting view. Not sure how it will be enforced, cause according to the bill, I’ll still be able to apply for up to 3 permits. Each permit is good for 90 days. So what does stop me from going to shop A one Saturday, then go to shop B the following Saturday? I think the dates on the permits, regarding date of purchase, will be crossed examined (maybe) when all the paperwork gets sent around.

    I’ve got 2 permits coming next week, I’ll have to review where all the extra copies go.

  8. Here was my letter to the Editor, never published:

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I read Assemblywoman Quigley’s August 8th letter to the editor and am aghast at her logic. She pats herself on the back for exempting from “gun rationing” the very authorities who are in the most likely position to abuse their powers (the state and military), the prevention of which was the very reason the founders included the enumerated right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution in the first place.

    This is the same woman, who in her speech in the Assembly chambers last year concerning the same bill, said “I have heard from many people who claim to reserve their right to buy as many guns per year as they want, but not many who actually buy many guns …” So in her mind, an enumerated Constitutional right, if not exercised, becomes forfeit? What if she said “I hear from a lot of people who wish to preserve their right to free speech, but not many who actually give speeches …” Is she suggesting that if I don’t regularly give speeches I lose my right to do so?

    She wonders what Mr. Braico will do with 33 “deadly weapons”? Is she suggesting he is a straw purchaser? She has impugned his integrity and soiled his reputation by implying his desire to purchase more than one gun per month involves illicit activity. She rightfully should be sued her slander! Further, the state will not obtain the statistics they want, as she claims. I fact, it will actually further mask multiple guns sales since these kinds of purchases already must be reported to BATFE. So under her scheme, rather than having one straw purchaser buy three guns and “losing them,” we now will have three straw purchasers buying one gun each and “losing them.” Brilliant.

    How do people like this get elected to a legislative body?

    Matthew Carmel
    Maplewood, NJ

  9. Magzilla says:

    “The burden should be on the people advocating it to prove it reduces crime, of which there is currently no evidence whatsoever.”

    There is evidence that it reduces crime.

    Paul Harvey On Gun Control

    September 2000

    “Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?

    CONSIDER THIS:

    · In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    · Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. HandGun Podcast » Blog Archive » I’m not bear food - 011 - [...] A Case Against One-Gun-A-Month [...]
  2. quote of the day at Pervasivelight 5.0 - [...] know… “enough” already like “one gun a month” and stuff. « quote of the…
top