(From Freedom States Alliance affiliate CeaseFire New Jersey)The New Jersey Senate passed Senate bill S-1774, colloquially known as the One Handgun A Month bill, early this morning.
Tom Jardim, Board Chair of Ceasefire NJ, the Garden State’s leading organization devoted to reducing gun violence said: “At 12:15 this morning the Senate took an important step toward making the illegal trafficking of handguns in our state less likely. There can be no doubt that S-1774 is life-saving legislation, intended to reduce the movement of handguns from
legal sale at New Jersey gun shops to illegal street sale. These illegal handguns are the ones that fuel gun
crime and violence. It is illegal
guns that are used to threaten, wound, maim and kill.”
“We especially commend Sponsor Sen Sandra Cunningham, Sen President Richard Codey and Law & Public Safety Chair Sen John Girgenti,” said Jardim, “for moving the bill in the face of withering gun lobby opposition. Governor Corzine and staff also worked hard for passage. And, One Handgun A Month originated with Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, a tireless advocate for
public safety. These fine public officials deserve the thanks of all New Jerseyans concerned about the safety or our homes, schools and communities.”
Ceasefire NJ was joined in support of S-1774 by Mayor Healy, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, the NJ County Prosecutors Association, the City Councils of Atlantic City, Jersey City, Camden, Paterson, Passaic and Newark, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the New Jersey Million Mom March
Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire NJ said: “Leave it to sensible Garden State legislators to hold the NRA juggernaut at bay by promoting the public safety. The NRA put on quite a show this spring, bringing DC-based lobbyists who tried to confuse legislators and obfuscate the issue. One NRA lobbyist claimed to be a retired ATF supervisor and went so far as to testify in committee that shutting off bulk straw purchases that fuel the illegal handgun trade would somehow be a mistake and make
law enforcement’s job more difficult. Imagine, a mistake to seek to reduce the flow of illegal handguns to our streets. More proof the gun lobby is willing to do or say anything, including lie, to seek to protect gun industry profits.”
Jardim asked: “Who needs to buy more than 13 handguns a year? The only people with such need are
firearms collectors, exempted from the bill, and criminal entrepreneurs who arrange the movement of handguns from legal bulk sale at gun shops, including in New Jersey, to illegal street sale - to the very people all agree should not have guns. These street customers cannot pass background checks, so need traffickers to supply them illegal handguns. How else would they get guns? S-1774, by severely limiting numbers of handguns sold to individuals, will severely diminish intrastate gun trafficking, and save lives in the bargain.
“It came down to the Senate understanding its duty to mediate between the personal privilege of a tiny minority of NJ handgun extremists and the common good – public safety. Happily, it decided for the latter,” said Jardim. “We anticipate the Governor will sign this critical bill post haste.”
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION: Ceasefire NJ Celebrates One Handgun a Month Law
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You really think criminals get their guns from gun shops?
They don't. They buy them on a secondary market that operates outside of the law . They steal them. They get them from friends and family. They [criminals] by definition don't obey laws. So how in God's name do the supporters of this bill think it will help mitigate their criminal problems?
Restricting law -abiding citizens is not the way to cure the problem.
And it doesn't matter if I don't NEED 13 guns a year. This is the United States of America, and we have something called freedom, and that freedom applies to me when I want to buy guns.
I don't need the government telling me how many guns a month I can purchase.
- mhphoto
June 26, 2009 9:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
indeed
"And it doesn't matter if I don't NEED 13 guns a year. This is the United States of America, and we have something called freedom, and that freedom applies to me when I want to buy guns.
I don't need the government telling me how many guns a month I can purchase"
I must agree with you on this one mhphoto. As I read the article, and understood the logic behind it, I will still completely troubled that the government was restricting the rights of people. Good intention, poor application.
- tek June 27, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not entirely true
One good example I can think of was Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech a couple of years ago. He purchased those guns legally, after a background check and all.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 11:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is true.
I think that most gun-rights supporters are in favor of background checks, but the system fails sometimes. All systems do at some point.
I wonder how many people would've been saved if students (over the age of 21 who had gone through all the necessary legal and financial avenues and proved themselves competent to conceal a weapon) who had their concealed carry permits had been allowed to defend themselves on campus.
It asinine for state politicians to think that our rights end when you reach the hallowed ground of an educational institution.
They only need look at Utah and its complete lack of violence coming students who are legally armed.
- mhphoto
June 29, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But isn't our standard for competence
too lax, if school shootings such as these are the result?
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 8:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And?
The National Highway Safety Administration estimates that in 2006 17,941 deaths were caused by " alcohol related accidents." And many of them were caused by citizens who purchased their cars and alcohol completely legally. So where's the outrage over that?
And let us not forget, of driving and the right to bear arms, only one is guaranteed in the constitution . One is a right. The other is a privilege. The problem is, the right is treated like a privilege and the privilege is treated as a right.
Maybe I'll send a dictionary to these folks and see if that helps. Probably not, since they won't read it anyway.
- LagerHead
June 29, 2009 7:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We have laws against
drinking and driving. That's the thing about this specific law , is that it preempts harm. As soon as a drunk person gets behind the wheel of a car, he's committing a crime . Just like as soon as someone steps foot on a gun-free zone, they're committing a crime.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Very true
Yet they continue to happen. We have laws against drunk driving, but right now, there are hundreds of people driving drunk on the roads of America (and Canada).
But you shouldn't be denied your right to drive or to drink alcohol because a minority of the population can't handle the responsibility of either. And if they tried, I'd be first in line to defend your right to drive and enjoy a cold brew.
- LagerHead
June 29, 2009 8:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But that's what the law is
A denial of the right to do both of those things at once. Are you saying you would like a repeal of drunk driving laws?
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Come on...
Get serious. If I even hinted at possibly joking about implying that, it was wholly unintentional. I also wouldn't support repealing any laws that make it illegal to kill someone in other than self defense.
Let me put it this way. In the U.S. it is legal to drive a car as long as you are of the appropriate age and have a license. It is also legal for me, as a law -abiding resident of the state of Tennessee, and since I have completed the required courses, paid the required fees, and passed the required background check, to carry my firearm in most places in the state. Finally, it is legal for me, since I am over the age of 21 to consume alcohol . However, it is not legal for me to drink alcohol and drive OR to drink and carry my weapon. These are both good things, and I support them both.
However, as long as I am drinking, or driving, or carrying my firearm in accordance with the law , stay off my back.
- LagerHead
June 29, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But now...
But now we're getting into the asinine thought that gun-free zones prevent gun violence. It's naive to think this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Criminals, by definition, break laws. They don't care if somewhere is labeled a "gun-free zone". Gun-free zones are a ludicrous way to deny law -abiding citizens the God-given right to defend their own lives, as well as the lives of others, all in the name of "common sense gun legislation".
- mhphoto
June 29, 2009 9:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, but statitstically
one-handgun a month does reduce secondary-market handgun sales.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 10:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really
On what do you base this statement, please just the facts. And even if this is the case, cutting the secondary sales of legally owned firearms is beneficial in what way.
- the car man msncom
July 1, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.