Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
NJ Senate Committee Passes .22 Rifle Ban, Magazine Ban By 3 to 2 Vote


On May 5, New Jersey's Senate Law and Public Safety Committee passed SB993, the ban against magazines holding more than 10 rounds and .22 rifles--along with other guns--with fixed magazines holding more than ten rounds.

The vote was along party lines, with three Democrats voting yes and two Republicans voting no.
As Breibart News reported on March 3, the ban will outlaw 43 rifles including .22 rifles like the "Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66, and Winchester 190." The ban does this by broadening the label of "assault firearm" to include .22 rifles with a fixed magazine exceeding 10 rounds.
SB993 is sponsored by state senators Loretta Weinberg (D-37) and Nia H. Gill (D-34). They said their bill "is in response to the horrific tragedy in Arizona where the assailant utilized a large capacity ammunition magazine that resulted in the death of six people and injuries to thirteen others, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-22-Rifle-Ban-Magazine-Ban-By-Vote-Of-3-to-2



New Jersey Assembly Committee Considers Gun Ban, 10-Round Mag Limit


The New Jersey Assembly's Law and Public Safety Committee is considering a bill that limits magazine capacity to ten rounds and bans many popular rifles along the way.

The magazine limitations deal with detachable as well as fixed magazines. For this reason, the passage of the measure would mean .22 rifles with fixed magazines beyond ten rounds--43 rifles including the "Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190"--would be numbered with banned "assault [firearms]."
"Possession of an 'assault firearm' is a second-degree crime in New Jersey." It carries a penalty of up to ten years in jail.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs' Scott Bach said, "This bill is a gun ban, there's no question about that." He added, "If it becomes law, it would have zero impact on crime because criminals don't follow bans. It would only affect legal gun owners by essentially tying their hands when they need to defend their lives."
Worse yet, as written, the bill has "no grandfather clause and no amnesty period." The moment it becomes law, anyone in possession of one of the newly banned rifles "is automatically a felon" and his or her weapons "are subject to seizure by the government."

Here is more info:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...mittee-Considering-Gun-Ban-10-Round-Mag-Limit



grey
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,846 Posts
Even Nazi-fornia gave those .22's a pass. Here you have 2 stupid women who don't know SH*T about guns, making law. Christie would do well to veto this silly, punative law. By the way, I am getting so sick and tired of Gabby Giffords being used as a prop for these wacko left wing politicos . I never knew she existed, and now every time there's some Dumb-as-crap get together, they trot her out and fawn over her and her disability. How many awards has she been given, since getting shot ?? .She seems to have taken on a life beyond that of normality. Every anti-gun whacko, uses her as a prop. I'm just sick of listening and hearing about it like no one else has ever suffered a tradgedy of some sort.!! Just MHO, BB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
Christie would do well to veto this silly, punative law.
Considering christie's past track record on defending the 2nd Amendment, I don't expect him to veto this "law"...
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
14,242 Posts
I guess using and abusing the brain damaged, like Jim Brady and now Gabby, is cool. To me it is exploitation of those who are unable to clearly think for themselves. The anti-gunners and liberals will stop at nothing. Exploiting the mentally impared is just an effective method. The end justifies the means. Sarah had a hard time programming Jim's brain but she would prod him on. I bet they spent days coaching him to say one or two sentences.

I think the lack of grandfathering the existing firearms is a US Constititutional loser. It will cost them every bill they pass that ignores it, unless Obummer quickly changes the court with another ignorer of the Constitution. If they can ignore the Ex-Post Facto provision, unlike even the AWB who included grandfathering to prevent that challenge, we have a big problem IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
Even Nazi-fornia gave those .22's a pass. Here you have 2 stupid women who don't know SH*T about guns, making law. Christie would do well to veto this silly, punative law. By the way, I am getting so sick and tired of Gabby Giffords being used as a prop for these wacko left wing politicos . I never knew she existed, and now every time there's some Dumb-as-crap get together, they trot her out and fawn over her and her disability. How many awards has she been given, since getting shot ?? .She seems to have taken on a life beyond that of normality. Every anti-gun whacko, uses her as a prop. I'm just sick of listening and hearing about it like no one else has ever suffered a tradgedy of some sort.!! Just MHO, BB
Well, when your biggest accomplishment in office was getting shot in the head...
I'm just as sick of hearing of her and her hypocrite husband.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
74,955 Posts
I guess using and abusing the brain damaged, like Jim Brady and now Gabby, is cool. To me it is exploitation of those who are unable to clearly think for themselves. The anti-gunners and liberals will stop at nothing. Exploiting the mentally impared is just an effective method. The end justifies the means.
Her husband has control over her and all he would have to do is to say no.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Ex Post Facto does not apply here, they do not have to grandfather to be legal. They wouldn't be punishing people for something they did before the new law, they would be punished for possession after the passage of the new law. The grandfather clauses in AWB, etc, were probably done because they wouldn't have passed without those provisions, but there is no requirement by law.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
14,242 Posts
Ex Post Facto does not apply here, they do not have to grandfather to be legal. They wouldn't be punishing people for something they did before the new law, they would be punished for possession after the passage of the new law. The grandfather clauses in AWB, etc, were probably done because they wouldn't have passed without those provisions, but there is no requirement by law.

The case law is not well settled but the Constitution does provide that an act committed legally, when committed, can not be made illegally later. If Joe buys a gun in 1980 and later it is supposed to be banned, that is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution. Article 1, section 9[3] "No bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The intent of the framers does matter, should be considered and can be decided today. The framers intended that no one be punished for something they did years ago be outlawed by a law passed years later. That is my position and I am sticking to it. As a result, no law can be passed which punishes or makes illegal a gun legally owned, purchased or possesed when originally owned, purchased or possessed. It is a least a good position to use before the Sup. Ct.. That was the intent of the Constitution. Disagree if you like and so many disagree with the words in the Second Amendment.

Explain to me how possessing something before the law was passed, which was legal, and they now make it illegal, is OK under the words in the Constitution? NO Ex post facto Law shall be passed!! They are attempting a word play(possession then and now), which was not the intent of the Constitution. To make something illegal(possession), which was originally, when done, legal(same possession), is not permitted period.


Plus, where is the taking of property without due compensation now OK.? They are making your guns worthless or illegal and the gov is not giving due compensation. This is another problem for them. In NC, they have upheld that the government can not deminish the value of your property, much less take it, without just compensation. They are gonna have to pay FMV if properly challenged in the SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
if Christie DOESN'T veto it ... this may be the proverbial "nail in the coffin" as far as any Presidential asperations he has ...
Nope...

christi is the kind of loser The "gop" establishment (mcCain, mcConnell, rubio, lindsey graham, boehner, et el) loves... They will nominate christi or his ilk... Then we will be right back in the "vote for the lesser of two evils" mode, as some posters here suggest...

I was just old enough to vote when John Kennedy ran for President... I voted for him.

But, since that time, I have always voted republican... In every election since that time, other than Ronald Reagan, I have been forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils"... And I refuse to do it again...


If the "gop" once again nominates a liberal loser like mcCain, romney, christi, dole, etc., the dimocrats will once again win, and the "gop" will be even more irrelevant than it is now...
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The case law is not well settled but the Constitution does provide that an act committed legally, when committed, can not be made illegally later. If Joe buys a gun in 1980 and later it is supposed to be banned, that is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution. Article 1, section 9[3] "No bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The intent of the framers does matter, should be considered and can be decided today. The framers intended that no one be punished for something they did years ago be outlawed by a law passed years later. That is my position and I am sticking to it. As a result, no law can be passed which punishes or makes illegal a gun legally owned, purchased or possesed when originally owned, purchased or possessed. It is a least a good position to use before the Sup. Ct.. That was the intent of the Constitution. Disagree if you like and so many disagree with the words in the Second Amendment.

Explain to me how possessing something before the law was passed, which was legal, and they now make it illegal, is OK under the words in the Constitution? NO Ex post facto Law shall be passed!! They are attempting a word play(possession then and now), which was not the intent of the Constitution. To make something illegal(possession), which was originally, when done, legal(same possession), is not permitted period.


Plus, where is the taking of property without due compensation now OK.? They are making your guns worthless or illegal and the gov is not giving due compensation. This is another problem for them. In NC, they have upheld that the government can not deminish the value of your property, much less take it, without just compensation. They are gonna have to pay FMV if properly challenged in the SC.
My concern is handing the guns down to a future generation. It may have been legal when I got it but my 9 year old grandson cannot 'legally' own a gun, so passing them down to future generations creates the problem...

grey
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
14,242 Posts
My concern is handing the guns down to a future generation. It may have been legal when I got it but my 9 year old grandson cannot 'legally' own a gun, so passing them down to future generations creates the problem...

grey
Most states allow for inheritance of firearms legal, without a permit, license, etc. and across state lines. Again, the more potent argument is probably gonna be money. The gov. does not want to pay the cost of no property will be taken with due process and just compensation. Even GB and Australia had to pay, although small amounts, for guns that were taken. Imagine the cost to take all the firearms in the US.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,846 Posts
Anyone who has ever challanged the Federal Government ,knows that they are a law unto themselves !! You point out some law they ate violating and if correct, they just get a Federal Judge to change it . They can do that in less than 24 hours . What you say vs what they say, will take years to resolve . Don't fodget , they also have unlimited resources . Just MHO , looBB
The case law is not well settled but the Constitution does provide that an act committed legally, when committed, can not be made illegally later. If Joe buys a gun in 1980 and later it is supposed to be banned, that is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution. Article 1, section 9[3] "No bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The intent of the framers does matter, should be considered and can be decided today. The framers intended that no one be punished for something they did years ago be outlawed by a law passed years later. That is my position and I am sticking to it. As a result, no law can be passed which punishes or makes illegal a gun legally owned, purchased or possesed when originally owned, purchased or possessed. It is a least a good position to use before the Sup. Ct.. That was the intent of the Constitution. Disagree if you like and so many disagree with the words in the Second Amendment.

Explain to me how possessing something before the law was passed, which was legal, and they now make it illegal, is OK under the words in the Constitution? NO Ex post facto Law shall be passed!! They are attempting a word play(possession then and now), which was not the intent of the Constitution. To make something illegal(possession), which was originally, when done, legal(same possession), is not permitted period.


Plus, where is the taking of property without due compensation now OK.? They are making your guns worthless or illegal and the gov is not giving due compensation. This is another problem for them. In NC, they have upheld that the government can not deminish the value of your property, much less take it, without just compensation. They are gonna have to pay FMV if properly challenged in the SC.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
14,242 Posts
Anyone who has ever challanged the Federal Government ,knows that they are a law unto themselves !! You point out some law they ate violating and if correct, they just get a Federal Judge to change it . They can do that in less than 24 hours . What you say vs what they say, will take years to resolve . Don't fodget , they also have unlimited resources . Just MHO , looBB
They definitely do not follow the law nor the Constitution, and to fight them is hard. If we do not fight them and make our arguments, our guns are done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
14. (New section) Any person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days from the effective date of this act. During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall:

a. Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

b. Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable; or

c. Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.1

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S1000/993_R1.HTM

Oneshooter
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top