One Gun a Month in New Jersey

Point.  Counterpoint.  For those of you unfamiliar with the process of purchasing a firearm in New Jersey.

  1. First you need to get a license, called a Firearm Owners ID (or FID for short) card.  To apply for an FID, you have to call your local police department, who may only staff firearm permitting division part time, so they might not be open every day, or at convenient hours.  The cost is five dollars.
  2. In addition to a FID card, you will need a permit to purchase a handgun.  Applications are also filed with the local police department.  Pistol purchase permits are only valid for ninty days after they issue.  The cost is two dollars.
  3. You will need to be fingerprinted.  This costs 25 to 50 dollars.  You only have to do this for a first application, but many police departments insist this is not the case.
  4. The law states that the police have thirty days to conduct a 13 point background check, and issue or deny an FID application or permits to purchase handguns, but the fact is that it often takes months, and the courts in New Jersey are uninterested in holding issuing authorities to the law.
  5. You are required to submit to the police a list of two references, who are not related to you.  They will inquire with these references as to your disposition, drinking habits, mental health, and whether the reference would have any issue with their buying a firearm.  I have been listed as a reference for New Jersey people on FID applications, and I was appalled at the personal questioned asked.  Even in Pennsylvania, for a license to carry a loaded firearm concealed on one’s person, the sheriffs that do check references are far more discrete and respectful.

If requiring this for each and every handgun purchase has not been sufficient to stop criminal trafficking of firearms, it’s beyond insane to believe that adding one more requirement, one that rations the number of purchase permits police may issue, is going to be what does the trick.  Criminals don’t obey laws about robbery, murder, and aggrevated assault.  They definitely aren’t going to obey regulatory laws, no matter how “more illegal” you make them.  We sound like a broken record with this, but many just don’t seem to want to accept it.

Anti-Gun Bills in California Headed to Senate

They passed the assembly earlier in the week, and are now slated to head to the Senate:

Assembly Bill 2062 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 17. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee for its consideration.

Sponsored by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB2062 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.

Internet bulk ordering?  Forget about it.  It’ll be illegal.  And as if that weren’t bad enough:

Assembly Bill 2235 has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee and is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday, June 24.

This legislation would prohibit the sale of handguns other than “owner-authorized (or “smart”) handguns”– that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user.

And, of course, law enforcement is exempt.  I guess either their kids don’t matter, or this isn’t about kids at all, but about making sure people can’t buy guns that actually work.

First National Bank Hates Gun Owners?

Looks as if that car dealer who was giving away a gift certificate for a gun with the purchase of a car is getting jerked around by their bank.  I’m reserving judgement until more information comes out, but this doesn’t look good for FNB.

UPDATE: Cam Edwards says it’s the First National Bank of Kansas that Max Motors is talking about.  He’s going to call and get their side of the story on Monday.

Paterson Goes on Anti-Gun Offensive

New York Govenror David Paterson is negotiating with Democrats in the New York House of Representatives to get his gun control package passed.  His package includes requiring the taking of a training course before gun licenses are issued, no matter how long you’ve been shooting, and no matter how familiar you are with guns.  Apparently this has some Democrats in New York upset, because it allows for training to be done by the National Rifle Assocation.

I actually agree with the anti-gunners that training is important, and that people need to be educated on the safe use of firearms.  Where I depart from them, is that I don’t believe it should be a condition on exercising a constitutional right.  Every person who graduates from high school should have had a course in safely using a firearm.  There was a time when most high schools had shooting teams, and back then, we didn’t seem to have a problem with kids shooting up their schools.  We teach kids safe sex because that knowledge could end up saving their lives.  Safe handling of firearms is in the same ballpark, not to mention useful for our military readiness.

Think Paterson and the anti-gun folks would get on board with that?  Hell no.  Because their goal is to make it harder to buy a gun, not in looking for ways to deal with the problem of uneducated people with firearms.

Australia Relaxing Strict Gun Laws?

Looks like there have been some changes in the New South Wales government, which have allowed them to pass some easements to the insanity they passed after the Port Arthur massacre.  As Dave Hardy said:

Looks as if, as is common in parliamentary systems, the largest party is still slightly less than a majority. And pro-gun Members formed their own party, the Shooters’ Party, which is just enough to give the dominant party a majority if it votes with them.

When I was in Louisville, I talked to a gentleman from Australia, who was forced to turn over a lifetime of collecting, worth approximately 100,000 dollars, including guns his father had given him, to the Australian authorities.  They banned every semi-automatic and pump action firearm in the country after Port Arthur.  If Australian shooters can start taking back what’s theirs, there’s hope for us all.  This is a very welcome development.

Contradiction?

GOA is getting behind national concealed carry:

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers’ licenses, where one state’s license is recognized in all other states.

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states’ rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish “national standards” for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

State driver’s licenses are recognized by other states through reciprocity, in a similar manner to concealed carry licenses, and through a series of compacts between the states meant to govern drivers licensing.  The federal government has nothing to do with it.

I’ve said before, the only constitutional way I believe the federal government can force national concealed carry is to use its powers under the 14th amendment.  Most bills I’ve seen so far rely on the herpes theory of the commerce clause, meaning since the gun once moved in interstate commerce, the federal government can forever regulate anything having to do with that product, even if the activity in question is wholly intrastate.  While I’d love to see national concealed carry reciprocity, I don’t want to see it at the expense of furthering this deranged view of the commerce power.

UPDATE: Is it wrong of me to point out the irony of a “no compromise” gun group getting behind a bill that’s absolutely a compromise?   I mean, if we have a second amendment right to carry a gun in any manner we please without asking for government permission, then supporting a bill that would allow the licensing system to stand, and allow Illinois and Wisconsin to continue to violate our rights would be a compromise, wouldn’t it?

I eagerly await an explanation from Larry Pratt about how this incrementalist approach is anything other than a sell out.

Another Case of Philly Not Enforcing the Law

Pennsylvania’s gun laws are useless, because Philadelphia isn’t enforcing them, again.  So why are they not only barking loudly for more, but if they aren’t going to enforce the laws we have now, why are they even on the books?

Sullivan Act in Peril

Jacob looks at the New York Sun’s post which suggests that New York’s gun laws could come under fire as a result of Heller.  Any bets as to whether any case filed in New York ends up before Weinstein?  Think he’ll care about Heller?  Fortunately, the second circuit will, no doubt.

One Gun a Month Headed to Floor in New Jersey

From ANJRPC:

On Monday, June 23, the New Jersey Assembly is scheduled to vote on A339 – New Jersey’s latest version of gun rationing legislation, which affects collectors, sportsmen, target shooters, and interferes with the inheritance of firearms.
The legislation, sponsored by Assemblywoman Joan Quigley (D-32), would criminalize the purchase of more than one handgun per month by honest citizens, even though they have already been pre-certified by the state as law abiding citizens after passing a comprehensive 13-point background investigation. Multiple handgun permits could not be used during the same 30-day period, and permits that could not be used before their expiration date would become useless.

The legislation restricts the rights of law abiding citizens, and fails to address the true source of “gun violence” – criminals. A New Jersey court recently invalidated similar legislation brought at the local level, holding that there is no rational relationship between restricting the number of firearms purchased by law abiding citizens and crime.

They are asking that people in New Jersey contact assembly members here.  I guess outlawing muskets wasn’t enough for Bryan Miller.  Seriously, New Jersey folks, you have to stand up and get organized, or it’s all going to over for you.  Don’t depend on Heller to save you.  It might not.  New Jersey already requires gun owners to get a license before purchasing a firearm.  It also requires a permit from the police for each pistol purchased.  My understanding is that process time on these can be up to a year, despite what the law says.  Adding one gun a month to New Jersey’s already insane requirements for purchasing a firearm is worse than useless.