Pennsylvania House Rep Tries To Bury Anti-Gun Bills

Leave a comment

HT Bearing Arms.

I hope that  Pennsylvania  Representative Rep. Aaron Bernstine(R-10)nis able to derail these anti gun bills.

As gun control seems to be worming its way through the legislative process up in Pennsylvania, it sounds like a foregone conclusion that these bills will become law. Even the supposedly pro-gun GOP in the state seems to be embracing the bills.

To be fair, they’re not the most drastic anti-gun measures we’ve seen, but they’re still problematic.

Because of this problematic nature, pro-gun representatives probably feel like their backs are up against the wall. They’re looking for ways to fight this infringement on personal liberty any way they can.

I can’t say I find fault with this particular method.

Seeking to derail two bills that he said infringe on gun owners’ constitutional rights, state Rep. Aaron Bernstine has filed 79 amendments for the House to discuss and debate.

“We’re going to do every single thing that we can do to stop the folks in the anti-gun movement of achieving their goals of removing firearms from law-abiding citizens in Pennsylvania,” said Bernstine, R-10, New Beaver.

Bernstine is a staunch Second Amendment supporter who posted video on Facebook of himself at a gun range shortly after his driveway was vandalized last year and recently tweeted a photo of him and his young son target shooting.

House Bills 1872 and 2227, Bernstine insisted, would violate the Pennsylvania constitution, which states that the right for Pennsylvanians to bear arms “shall not be questioned.”

Both of the bills passed the House Judiciary Committee and have been referred the Rules Committee. House Bill 2227 passed in an 18-9 vote on Tuesday, while House Bill 1872 passed 14-13 on Wednesday.

Bernstine’s effort is a noble gesture, even if it turns out to be a futile one. Burying the bills in amendments slows down the process completely and may well “nerf” some of the more egregious possibilities of both of these bills.

As such, it’s a pretty smart move. Even if it doesn’t block the bill, it may well make them less of an infringement on people’s right to keep and bear arms. It sucks, but this is how the legislative game is played, and while I’m sure anti-gunners are already crying foul over this one, both sides do stuff like this all the time.

The goal is to either include poison pills or, at a minimum, make the least intrusive law humanly possible.

It’s just a shame that it’s even necessary.

The solution to many of these situations isn’t new laws, but enforcement of our existing laws. With news that so many of these shooters are domestic abusers, I can’t help but see enforcement of our domestic violence laws as being the key to stopping so many of these killings. Prosecute those who beat their families and then they can’t get legal access to guns in the first place.

Lock that down and stop trying to create new laws.

But, since politicians love to create new laws, Bernstine’s 79 amendments makes a valiant effort at trying to prevent Pennsylvania from embracing the stupid that has overtaken so many states in the wake of Parkland.


Ohio’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Measure To Get Vote, Kasich Vows To Veto

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I hope the Ohio Legislators vote to override RINO Kasich’s veto.

While Stand Your Ground laws get a bad rap, the truth is that they save lives. When armed citizens know they’re not required to run away from an attack and can act to save their own life or another, they can make faster decisions and act more decisively. Quick, aggressive action is the key to winning most violent confrontations, after all.

In Ohio, a bill that will put Stand Your Ground laws on the books will soon be coming up for a vote.

A controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ gun bill will likely get a floor vote in the Ohio House next week and even if Gov. John Kasich follows through with his veto promise, there would be enough support to override a veto, said Speaker Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell.

House Bill 228 would give armed Ohioans the right to ‘stand your ground’ when facing a threat in public places such as parks, roads or stores. It would also shift the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the prosecution, which would align Ohio with the vast majority of states.

It is the first pro-gun rights bill to advance to a floor vote since the mass shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas, which prompted national protests and school walk outs.

Meanwhile, a package of six gun control measures — sponsored by state Rep. Mike Henne, R-Clayton, and supported by Kasich — faces an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled House.

For the record, Gov. Kasich’s vow to veto the bill is all the evidence you need to see that just because a politician is a Republican, it doesn’t mean he’s pro-gun.

Of course, let’s also note the third paragraph of the above-quoted text:

It is the first pro-gun rights bill to advance to a floor vote since the mass shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas, which prompted national protests and school walk outs.

Is there any doubt the media is biased? It should be noted that Santa Fe didn’t spark much of anything. Probably because Texans understood that the tool with the gun was the problem, not the tool in his hand. As a result, the students didn’t start crying and preening on national TV, demanding that their every wish be catered to.

But the media wants you to forget that. As such, they want to lump the two shootings in together to pretend both generated an equal measure of outrage. They’re hoping you simply forgot, and they’ll probably hide behind a claim of poor phrasing.

In either case, the paragraph is a non-sequitur since Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with either incident. They’re completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What matters is that Ohioans will be able to act in their own defense or while defending the life of another without having to spend precious seconds debating whether they should retreat first or not. They can act and know that the law protects them from prosecution.

The fact that Gov. Kasich would veto such a bill suggests that he’s out of touch with his own citizens, the majority of people in the United States, and reality.

And to think, he wanted to be president.

Attorney Argues Parkland Deputy Had No Legal Responsibility To Protect Kids

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Sadly retired deputy Scot Peterson’s attorney is correct about him not having to defend the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled the police are not obligated to protect and serve.

While we reported on the efforts by survivors of the Pulse shooting in Orlando to seek redress against people they feel failed to protect themfrom a crazed shooter, they’re not the only ones looking for legal redress for people failing to protect them. It seems the father of one of the slain children in the Parkland massacre is doing the same.

Meanwhile, retired deputy Scot Peterson is defending himself by saying he had no legal requirement to protect those kids.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Many have called him a coward, but former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson had no legal duty to stop the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, his attorneys say.

Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can’t be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.

Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he “opted for self-preservation over heroics,” the attorneys wrote.

The statements came in a motion seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack, the father of 18-year-old Meadow Pollack, who was killed in the shooting.

Pollack sued Peterson on April 30 in Broward Circuit Court, accusing the former school resource officer of failing to do his duty.

While shooter [the killer] rampaged through the school on Feb. 14, security footage shows Peterson ducking between two pillars outside, avoiding gunfire. Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson should have entered the building and confronted the killer. President Donald Trump, like Pollack, called Peterson a coward.

I’ve called Peterson a coward too.

But he’s right.

I don’t like it, but Peterson is right. The government has no duty to protect its citizens. This has been found by the courts several times through the years, so I’m afraid that despite my sympathy for Pollack’s position, he’s likely to lose this case.

He shouldn’t, though.

You see, while I do believe that every human being has the responsibility to protect themselves, the government has made it so that there are some places where we’re simply not allowed to do so. So-called “gun free zones” artificially restrict our rights by making it so that we’re unable to defend ourselves from those who ignore laws and take guns into these places with the intent to kill as many disarmed people as possible. Places like schools, for example.

Because the government has restricted our ability to defend ourselves, I’d argue that they should be held responsible for the safety of all those who are within that gun free zone. After all, if you’re going to make it virtually impossible for citizens to protect themselves, then you need to protect them.

Makes sense, right?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such isn’t going to be the cast. I’m afraid Pollack will lose. Unless the intent is to take this to the Supreme Court and try and change the interpretations of the law, not much will come of this except making an expensive mess of things for a little while. It’s a shame, but it’s the law.

NJ Gun Control Works So Well, 17 People Shot At Art Gathering

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

New Jersey like Chicago has draconian gun laws yet their shooting and murder rates just keep climbing.

Albert Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” and that describes the gun control crowd. 


New Jersey has strict gun controls. I’ve had readers reach out to me, at least in part, to vent about the draconian laws in their home state and how it keeps them from defending themselves.

In New Jersey, you need to define a clear need for a concealed carry permit, for example. Saying you’re concerned about mass shootings isn’t enough. You have to have a real, viable reason to fear for your life.

That’s too bad. Someone might have been able to stop a couple of rampaging lunatics from shooting 17 people at an all-night art gatheringearly Sunday morning.

The gunmen were identified in a mass shooting that left 17 people shot, 22 injured and one person dead at an all-night art celebration in Trenton early Sunday, according to the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office. Authorities are calling it a “mass casualty shooting” on Father’s Day.

Four people – including a 13-year-old boy – were initially in extremely critical condition on Sunday, according to the MCPO. Three of those people, including the boy, were upgraded to stable condition by late Sunday. A third suspect is in critical condition.

A 33-year-old gunman Tahaij Wells, 32, is dead (pictured left), and another, Amir “Mir” Armstrong, 23, is in police custody and charged with unlawful possession of a handgun (pictured right). Both were identified as Trenton residents. One of the shootings was labeled “officer-involved.”

Wells was just released from prison on homicide-related charges, according to the MCPO.

“Devastated by last night’s shooting at Art All Night Trenton,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said. “We must eradicate the scourge of gun violence from our communities.”

The Art All Night festival was an opportunity for local artists to present their works, and some ironically used it as an opportunity to protest gun violence. The shooting reportedly started near a booth that said: “Imagine a world fee of gun violence.”

I’m not sure if that last bit has a typo or not, but I’m going to assume the booth said: “Imagine a world free of gun violence.” Honestly, it’s a noble sentiment. I wish there weren’t any kind of violence in the world. But there is, and the Art All Night Trenton got to witness it first hand.

So much for noble sentiments.

A police officer apparently put down Wells, but I can’t help but think about how this would have been different if this had been in a state that doesn’t automatically distrust its citizens when it comes to guns. I promise you the chances are damn good that both bad guys would have been put down long before 17 people were shot.

Remember what happened when terrorists showed up at an art show in Texas? They had AK-47s and didn’t even make it through the door for crying out loud. I somehow doubt these two yahoos would have lasted much longer.

Keep in mind that New Jersey also just passed a whole slew of new gun control measures, but guess what? None of them would have stopped this rampage, especially since it appears that Wells was a convicted felon and couldn’t legally own any firearm.

It’s almost like the bad guys don’t obey gun laws any better than they obey other laws. Go figure.


Another Florida Tragedy, This Time Showing Gun Control’s Failure

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This tragedy shows just how useless gun control laws are to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Florida feels kind of like the epicenter of tragedy in this country at the moment. Despite it having no kind of monopoly on horrible events, one can almost be forgiven for believing otherwise.

The most recent involved a man taking four children hostage after his girlfriend told police he’d battered her earlier this week. In the end, all four children were killed, a police officer was shot, and the hostage taker committed suicide.

Oh, yeah, he was also a convicted felon.

A Florida felon who authorities say killed four children after a daylong standoff that started with the shooting of an officer had recently violated his parole, and his parole officer recommended that he be put in jail for six months. Instead he was given supervised probation, court records show.

Gary Lindsey was arrested last month for theft and then jailed for violating his probation from a decade-old arson charge, the records show. His probation officer said Lindsey posed no threat to the community but she still recommended that he be incarcerated for six months. However, Lindsey’s sister agreed to pay $1,000 and he agreed to pay $300 a month toward restitution, and his supervised probation was reinstated during a court hearing. The records show Lindsey had been working at an auto center in Orlando, earning $1,300 a month.

Sunday’s 21-hour standoff began when Lindsey’s girlfriend left the apartment and told police she had been battered. Lindsey fired at responding officers, seriously wounding one of them. He then holed up inside the apartment for much of the day with the four children, who they say ranged in age from 1 to 11. The girlfriend was the mother of all four children and Lindsey was the father of two of them, said family friend Walter Benenati.

“We heard gunshots, and I saw through the window that the policeman was down,” neighbor Miguel Lopez said. “The top stair was full of blood. They took the police officer down. … It was horrible.”

The officer is in critical condition but is expected to survive, thankfully.

There’s no level in which this isn’t awful. It’s horrible. I just don’t understand how anyone could murder children. I can’t comprehend it.

But there’s something else here to be looked at. Namely, the fact that Lindsey was able to get his hands on a firearm.

The news report above makes no mention of that. It doesn’t even ask the question, which is interesting. I mean, killing four people and shooting another before taking your own life is a mass shooting, right? Normally at this point, we have all kinds of questions about the killing and how the murderer got his weapon.

Why not now?

In part, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that there’s no way he could have obtained a firearm legally. He either lied when he bought it, stole it from someone else, bought it off the black market, or something similar. He couldn’t have walked into a gun store, followed all the rules, have the store do the same, and still purchased a gun. It’s not possible.

And because of that, it doesn’t rate the scale of tragedy it might otherwise have warranted.

Instead, a bad guy broke one of the plethoras of rules designed to prevent them from getting guns, did something horrible as a result, and the anti-gun crowd will either ignore the reality that the rules failed yet again or will simply think more rules will somehow make it all better.

It won’t.

Time and again, we see gun control failing to stop the truly evil.

Ruger Mark IV Recalled

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Please help spread the word about Ruger’s recall.


Ruger has announced a recall on their popular Mark IV pistols.

Ruger recently discovered that all Mark IV™ pistols (including 22/45™ models) manufactured prior to June 1, 2017 have the potential to discharge unintentionally if the safety is not utilized correctly. In particular, if the trigger is pulled while the safety lever is midway between the “safe” and “fire” positions (that is, the safety is not fully engaged or fully disengaged), then the pistol may not fire when the trigger is pulled. However, if the trigger is released and the safety lever is then moved from the mid position to the “fire” position, the pistol may fire at that time. View Safety Bulletin PDF


Although only a small percentage of pistols appear to be affected and we are not aware of any injuries, Ruger is firmly committed to safety and would like to retrofit all potentially affected pistols with an updated safety mechanism.

Until your Mark IV™ pistol has been retrofitted or you verify that it is not subject to the recall, we strongly recommend that you not use your pistol.

How To Determine If Your Pistol Needs The Retrofit

All Mark IV™ pistols produced prior to June 1, 2017 are potentially affected and therefore are being recalled. This includes Mark IV™ Target, Hunter, Competition, 22/45™, 22/45™ Lite and 22/45™ Tactical models. These models bear serial numbers beginning with “401” (2017 models) or “WBR” (2016 models).

Firearms NOT subject to the Recall

Newly manufactured Mark IV™ pistols will begin with serial number “500.” Thus, if you have a Mark IV™ or 22/45™ pistol with a serial number beginning with the number “5,” your pistol is not subject to the recall.

Firearms That Have Been Retrofitted Already

Mark IV™ and 22/45™ pistols retrofitted with the updated safety mechanism are easily identified by the letter “S” in the white safety dot that is visible when the safety is engaged.

In fairness to Ruger, this is hardly the worst design flaw we’ve seen. I, for one, don’t expect a safety to work if it’s not fully engaged.

However, that’s just me.

This is likely to be an expensive fix for something that I think Ruger could easily avoid messing with due to the nature of it, but for me, that’s a good thing. It means Ruger is standing up and doing what it thinks is right, not what it thinks it has to do to avoid getting into trouble. In this day and age, that’s kind of rare for a business, but it shouldn’t be.

If you have one of these weapons, I’m going to urge you to take advantage of this. Yes, I know, I may not see it as the worst flaw ever, it’s still something that the weapon wasn’t intended on doing, and that should always be fixed if at all possible. Besides, people get careless from time to time, and it would be nice to know that your safety doesn’t need precise attention.

Good on Ruger for taking care of this and working to fix it for their consumers.

Florida Candidate Promises To Ban ‘Assault Rifles’ By Decree

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The mask is off the Constitution and Bill Of Rights hating DemocRats and they are showing their true colors as full blown Communist.

While I really try not to focus on political parties here at Bearing Arms, sometimes, it’s difficult. The thing is, there are Democrats who support the Second Amendment, and as a writer covering the Second Amendment, I don’t want to alienate those readers. We all agree that candidates who oppose our right to keep and bear arms are a problem, and their party really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Their lack of respect for our civil rights, however, does.

However, I can’t help but think of how many Democrats are screaming about “fascism” ever since the election of President Donald Trump, but remain completely silent when a political candidate for governor announces that they’ve figured out a way to ban a certain type of gun by decree, completely circumventing anything resembling democratic process.

[Former U.S. Congresswoman Gwen] Graham pledged to ban assault weapons sales using a little-known state law.

“I have found a public safety statute that allows the governor, whoever she may be, to sign an executive order for public safety reasons banning that sale of military-style assault weapons,” Graham said.

In other words, she plans on banning the sale of scary-looking rifles by executive fiat, probably because she knows that despite the recent capitulation of the state’s legislature on a handful of gun control measures, a ban just isn’t going to get enough votes to pass.

Graham has basically said screw the legislative process and plans to govern with a phone and pen, kind of like President Obama did.

Yet Trump is the fascist dictator?

I’m sorry, but there are a few things Graham needs to consider. For one thing, even if she made such an order, I find it extremely unlikely that the legislature couldn’t overturn it. Further, there’s more than enough time to close that loophole up before she ever gets in office…assuming she can.

However, this really should worry the hell out of anyone who values our country’s republican values. By this, I don’t mean the Republican Party, but the values our Founding Fathers laid down very clearly via the Constitution. While I get that many may disagree with me on the Second Amendment, surely we can agree that the executive branch of government at any level shouldn’t be able to create law and ban items by decree.

Further, Graham’s proposal would only work until the opposition regained control of the governor’s office. At that point, another stroke of the pen could repeal her order.

So, not only is it a tyrannical effort by an anti-gun politician, but it’s not even a particularly effective one long term.

That said, it’s important to understand what our opponents are willing to stoop to in order to enact their radical agenda. In this case, they’re willing to give the middle finger to all that keeps this country from slipping into actual tyranny just so they can get their way. They really are like petulant little children, aren’t they?

To our pro-gun liberal allies, these are the people on your side on other issues. You might want to let them know how stupid they’re being because I suspect Graham isn’t willing to listen to me.

Judge Issues Injunction Against Deerfield, IL’s Assault Weapon Ban

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Illinois is a DemocRat controlled anti gun sewer with Chicago being the biggest turd collecting spot.

The tiny flea-speck of Deerfield, Ill. thought they could restrict what kind of guns people in their community could own. Being in Illinois, I can understand why they’d think that. It’s unlikely the state would do anything to defend the civil liberties of the town’s gun owners, after all.

However, it also immediately fired up the pro-gun rights crowd. A lawsuit was filed.

It now seems the first victory along that path has been won.

[The Second Amendment Foundation] along with the Illinois State Rifle Association sued the Chicago suburb on behalf of Deerfield resident Danieal Easterday on the grounds that it violated that preemption statute.  On Tuesday, Judge Luis Berrones Lake County circuit court judge agreed, granting the injunction thus preventing the village from rolling out its “assault weapons” ban.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica. “The village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance. The ordinance bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.

“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.’”

Following the Judge’s ruling, Deerfield issued a statement saying that it will consider an appeal.

“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance,” Deerfield said. “But we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois appellate court.”

In other words, this is just one win in what is likely to be a long, long battle.

Still, the injunction provides some much-needed breathing room for those in the community who own modern sporting rifles and have no wish to get rid of them as the law requires.

It is also that requirement which may, ultimately, lead to the law being overturned. After all, no one is supposed to be deprived of property without due process, and a case could well be made that banning an item that would be legal one inch outside of town to such a degree that law-abiding citizens would be forced to get rid of their property is “depriving” people of property.

But I’m not a lawyer.

The judge, however, is. He apparently saw sufficient ground to at least issue an injunction, which means this case isn’t the clear slam-dunk Deerfield officials thought it would be.

Ultimately, that’s great news. It’s also important that legal challenges become part and parcel of passing gun control legislation. Communities need to understand that we’re not about to give up our rights easily and factor that cost into the discussion of curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Win or lose, it needs to be costly. Deerfield is learning that lesson.

Rock Island Severs Ties With Auction House Over Gun Policy

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Bravo Rock Island Auction Company for standing up for the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is something it should never be, a hot-button issue. Many seem bound and determined to present so-called “assault rifles” as deadly instruments of mass destruction and to try and segregate them into a completely different part of American life.

Why else would Dick’s Sporting Goods, for example, completely stop selling the weapons even at their Field & Stream stores while still selling handguns, a firearm which is used in far more murders each year than modern sporting rifles by something like an order of magnitude.

However, the firearm industry isn’t taking it lying down. It’s showing that it can cut ties too.

The most recent to do so is Rock Island Auction Company.

The Illinois-based auction house said they had ended their relationship moving forward with Invaluable and its sister company AuctionZip, citing a change in the promoter’s guidelines. Comparing Invaluable’s shift to that of gun retailer Dicks Sporting Goods, RIAC said they had pulled their upcoming 10,000-gun 2018 June Regional Auction from the site and will not use the service again.

The reason for the breakup, according to RIAC, was that Invaluable announced in May that it would no longer sell, “all Class III weapons,” “assault-style” semi-automatic rifles, and other items.

For those looking to still participate in their auctions online, Rock Island is directing potential bidders to their new in-house live bidding site which they point out adds just 1 percent fees to items, whereas Invaluable charged 3 percent.

I applaud RIAC for this.

It could have easily gone along with the new policy, using it for some guns and doing something else for those not approved by Invaluable, but it didn’t. RIAC gave them the proverbial middle finger and went on to set up its own thing. This will potentially be better for its bottom line as well.

However, let’s not overlook what Invaluable was doing.

Time and time again, we keep seeing people trying to divide firearms into categories, “These guns are fine, but those guns are dangerous.” It’s rarely a comment on the quality of the gun, either. It’s that somehow those “dangerous” guns might get misused by someone, despite the ones in the “fine” category are being misused at an exponentially higher rate.

But, by dividing guns, it’s trying to divide the gun community. There are a lot of gun owners who have no interest in “assault-style” rifles. They don’t fit their needs, and so they don’t own any. The anti-gunners desperately want to drive a wedge between those of us with AR-15s and other so-called “assault rifles” and those who have no such thing.

The idea here is to weaken the gun community as an entity so they can make it possible to pass more and more anti-gun legislation.

No one in their right mind thinks mass shooters are bidding for AR-15s through Invaluable. It’s not a remotely practical way for such a person to obtain a firearm. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

But what it is about is making sure to feed into the narrative, to try and push the AR-15 and similar weapons into a completely different category because that’s the proper, responsible thing to do. At least, that’s the narrative.

In the meantime, Invaluable has accomplished nothing, but RIAC may well have boosted its bottom line in the long run.

Nice job.

NJ Governor Set To Sign Six Bills To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens’ Gun Rights

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

It seems New Jersey’s Governor is Hell Bent on doing away with the Second Amendment In New Jersey.

It’s not enough for some states to be among the worst when it comes to their citizens’ civil liberties, particularly the right to keep and bear arms. No, for some they have to keep ramping up the restrictions every chance they get. In the process, they make it clear that they’re trying to turn the heat up slowly so the frog in the water won’t notice it as much.

The end game, however, seems more and more likely to be the complete disarmament of all private citizens.

In one of those states, New Jersey, it appears they’re about to crank up the temperature a fair bit more.

On Wednesday, the governor is expected to sign a package of bills approved by the Democrat-controlled Legislature — a few of which received wide support from Republicans.

The following bills are sitting on Murphy’s desk:

A1217, which will create restraining orders in the state allowing family members and others to ask a judge to have a person’s guns seized and ban them from buying weapons for up to a year.

A1181, which will mandate law enforcement in the state to seize a person’s guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to themselves.

A2758, which will strictly define that state residents need to show a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun — meaning they must show they face a specific threat to their own safety.

A2757, which will require all private gun sales in the state to go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.

A2759, which will create an outright ban in the state on possessing armor-piercing bullets.

A2761, which will ban magazines in the state that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.

A seventh gun control bill would ban “ghost guns” that are assembled with untraceable components. That measure (S2465) was passed 37-0 in the Senate but has not yet gotten a vote in the Assembly.

It’s not enough that people just traveling through New Jersey can be caught up in their draconian gun control laws and risk losing their liberty over it. No, they’ve got to push for more idiotic laws.

For example, A2759. Armor-piercing bullets? Depending on the armor, regular ammunition can pierce it. I’ve got ammo that will pierce body armor because it’s more powerful ammo than certain body armors are rated for. Hell, most gun owners have ammo that can defeat some grades of body armor. For example, most centerfire rifle ammo will defeat anything short of Level III armors.

At what point does that constitute “armor-piercing?”

To be fair, the law specifies the rounds as having “a full metal jacket and an ogive with a steel penetrator tip followed by an aluminum core and is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor,” and not just ammo that can defeat a given type of armor. However, there’s not a lot of armor-piercing ammo floating around either. I find it extremely unlikely there’s a problem with this type of round ending up in criminal hands.

Instead, it’s far more likely to start this way and then be used to justify banning other kinds of ammo–or at least heavily restricting it–when the law changes absolutely nothing.

However, a look at this bill makes it also very clear that they’re looking at all the different ways they can chisel away people’s rights without crossing the line that the Supreme Court has already laid out. They want a total gun ban, but they can’t do it, so they’re doing everything else they can do to make life difficult for law-abiding gun owners.

For Governor Phil Murphy, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: