NJ Stands Poised to Unleash Thousands of Felons...

New Jersey stands poised to turn thousands of otherwise patriotic and law-abiding citizens into felons. In this respect, New Jersey seems ready to follow the lead of Connecticut. How did it work out up there?

Last year, Connecticut’s governor signed a bill that foisted a whole new set of restrictions on lawful gun owners. One of the aspects of the law requires registration of any newly purchased ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. So how does one go about proving when a magazine was purchased in the absence of a receipt? Good question, but then again, our lawmakers aren’t really supposed to be smart enough to consider such things. Consider that Governor Cuomo of New York, in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, outlawed anything larger than a 7-round magazine without seemingly being aware that no such thing existed and then had to back off when made aware of that fact, stating that New Yorkers could own the larger magazines but would be required to refrain from loading any more than seven rounds in them. Uh-huh (wink-wink).

So, Connecticut jumped on the wagon of those who somehow think that limiting the size of ammo magazines that lawful citizens can purchase will somehow overflow into the criminal population. When was the last time you knew of a criminal being concerned as to whether his gun was legal?

Moving right along, residents of Connecticut had until the end of last year to register their firearms and accessories that fell under the new law. On February 13th, it was reported that fewer than 50,000 registrations had been received in a state that calculates there might be as many as 350,000 weapons that fall under the ban. The following was reported in Connecticut’s The Currant newspaper, “And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.” Admittedly, some of these “newly minted criminals” might be due to ignorance of the new laws but you can rest assured that an equal amount, if not more, have purposely ignored the law and have no intention of registering their previously legal weapons with the state. One thing we do know, registration is just one more step on the path to ultimate confiscation because the state can’t confiscate that which it knows nothing about.

Back in April, 2013, NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney blocked a gun control bill that would have placed limits on magazine sizes but has since said he has had a change of heart. At the time, in the wake of Sandy Hook, the NJ Senate moved with “breakneck” speed to bring the bill forward but Sweeney blocked it stating that the state’s current limit of 15 round magazines was “effective.” Now that he has been re-elected, he has waffled.

So, what is it we are trying to do? I find Scott Bach’s argument compelling when he says, “Criminals and madmen ignore all gun restrictions, so the only thing this will accomplish is to interfere with lawful self-defense.”

On the other hand, Sweeney “argued that dropping the limit would not hinder responsible gun owners. Rather, he insisted, it could help prevent future mass shootings like the one in Connecticut.” (For the record it should be noted that the Sandy Hook shooter carried multiple 30-round magazines. While I would love to have access to 30-round magazines, I am willing to compromise at 15, the current limit.)  Sweeny’s latter statement about preventing mass shootings with smaller magazines is not only patently untrue but utterly absurd. Not Mr. Sweeney, nor anyone else short of God, for that matter, can state that the person ready to go on a shooting spree will magically change his/her mind because of the inability to get 15-round magazines. Add to that, if such a person is already a lawbreaker, why would he or she care what the law stated? And who are these so-called “responsible gun owners” that Mr. Sweeney references? Hinder from what, I would ask? What is it that reducing ammo magazines from 15 to 10 rounds would not hinder me from doing and how is it the Steve Sweeney knows so much about it?

The fact is that last year, on an open microphone, in NJ Senate chambers, the following discussion was overheard on May 9, 2013, between Senators Loretta Weinberg (D37), Sandra Cunningham (D31), Linda Greenstein (D14), and a member of the Senate Democrat’s Staff:

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

“They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

Not only does this show the general disdain that these individuals have for law-abiding citizens wishing only to exercise their Constitutional rights but it shows also the method they wish to use to accomplish their goals – confiscation through legislation – to hell with the Constitution. Ultimately this reveals the bigger lie that says, “No one wants to take guns away,” when, in fact, that is exactly the plan.

Frankly, I have to say that I agree with an NRA spokesperson who said, "This legislation represents the largest gun ban and gun-confiscation scheme in the history of the state. It will make felons out of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens overnight."

The only things that could block this now are Senate Republicans if they could muster the votes and/or Chris Christie. We’re watching.