Article on Gun Rationing Law

Fred “One-Gun-a-Month” Madden seems to be trying to get some cover in the media, and I guess Bryan Miller called in some favors from his buddies at the Inquirer:

Corzine pushed the bill through the Legislature late last month only after agreeing to create a task-force team whose first job will be considering amendments to ensure that collectors, competitive shooters, and recreational gun users “are not adversely affected.”

That could open the door for exceptions.

With the plan stuck one vote short of passage in the Senate, the compromise was needed to win over Sen. Fred Madden (D., Gloucester), who agreed to vote “yes” on the condition that concerns of law-abiding gun users – specifically collectors and competitive shooters – were addressed.

So pass a bad law first, and then go back and fix it later.  Always a winning strategy!  Then you have Bryan saying the same thing:

“We don’t want to create any problems for the hunters, for competitive shooters, for legitimate collectors. If we can find a way to make it easier for legitimate competitive shooters, great,” Miller said.

How do you define a “legitimate competitive shooter?”  or “legitimate collector?”  There’s no certificate, you know.  Am I a legitimate competitive shooter?  How can you tell?

But via SayUncle, we have a new study from the Joyce Foundation.  You know what it concluded?

The study found no effect on gun trafficking within the state from laws limiting handgun sales to a maximum of one gun per person per month.

Got that?  Even Bryan’s funders can’t find evidence this law does anything.  So why do we need it in New Jersey?

4 thoughts on “Article on Gun Rationing Law”

  1. “Even Bryan’s funders can’t find evidence this law does anything. So why do we need it in New Jersey?”

    It’s no use trying to figure these people out. Those we’re up against are utterly irrational and they will push their agenda to their dying breath. They are racist, class-ist and self-righteous to the point of being totalitarian. Worst of all, they’re stupid. They wouldn’t change their minds if Jesus Christ himself came back and became president of the NRA.

    Because all illegal guns start out life as legal ones, they want them banned – all of them. They’ll plot and scheme, say and do anything to anyone to further their agenda and slowly strangle the second amendment while we keep asking them to be reasonable.

    Personally, I’m through being reasonable. Nemo me impune lacessit.

  2. Curiously enough, these kind of laws actually help to sell guns. If you don’t have the money for a gun you see that you like, most people don’t buy it. When they have the money, they go back to the store and if it’s still there, they buy it. But if it’s been sold, they shrug their shoulders and say “Damn!” and go about their lives. Some stores have layaway, but many stores do not.

    However, if they pass a “One gun a month” law, that basically means every store will have to have a layaway system, because people will come in and say “Here’s the money, now hold on to it until the first!” Then, they will do their background checks and so forth. The difference between saying “Here’s all the money” and “Here’s some of the money, but I’ll have the rest in three weeks” is not much. In this way, people will be more inclined to buy guns they otherwise might pass on for financial reasons, because every other purchase becomes a long term consideration, several weeks away, when their finances might be better.

    It will still be the massive inconvenience that it is intended to be, but it will not reduce sales. It might also convince people who might not be interested in buying guns normally into buying them because they will know that you’re wait time is at least a month in the event of a natural disaster.

  3. Voolfie,

    I know what Bryan’s end game is. But he’s lying to try to get there. That’s basically what I’m trying to expose.

Comments are closed.