A2006 is supposedly a limitation on "high capacity" magazines. What it actually does is makes it a felony to own a broad class of popular weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds. A2777 is described as a bill defining what it means to make a reasonable deviation when traveling between your home and the target range, or between your home and the gun store. What it actually does it makes it illegal for you to buy a cup of coffee.
Since I work for a living I do not have the luxury of appearing before the committee to testify. So here is my virtual testimony to the public safety committee on those two bills.
A2006 (10 round limit and gun ban bill)
Senate president Sweeny had a tear in his eye
introducing this bill when the families from Newtosn were here on
Monday. How does this bill even address the Newtown situation? Do you
think Adam Lanza would have said “well, if I have to change
magazines forget it, I'll stay home?” Do you think the outcome
would have been any different? Does the possession of an 11th
bullet somehow make a good person bad? Because that's what this bill
says.
On Thursday, Senator Sweeny dried his tears and mocked
those same people from Newtown, bragging on twitter “No mass
shootings in NJ, therefore no need to carry a gun.” Does the senator mean that he thinks CT
should allow citizens to carry firearms? I doubt it. How about this, senator “No mass
shootings in NJ, therefore no need to enact more gun restrictions.”
Sweeny claims that “nobody needs more
than 10 rounds.” He has not provided one shred of evidence that
that is true. Statistics show that even police officers, who are
trained and experienced, miss 70% to 80% of the time when in a
stressful situation. I can fully understand that as I face an armed criminal with my heart pounding, pumping adrenaline, my hands shaking. Statistics also show that it often takes more
than oe hit to stop an attacker. So if I'm allowed only 10 rounds to
defend my family against an armed intruder (or, God forbid, multiple intruders), I'd better hope that I am
a lot better than a trained police officer, or my family is dead.
What are you going to say to the
families of people who are killed because they couldn't defend
themselves? Or how about the families of people who are put in prison for
5 years for having a gun with a standard capacity magazine – yes I
said standard capacity because that's what they are and that's what
the rest of the world calls them. When you put these people in prison
and their families are now without a father, or a mother, will you
shed a tear for them? I doubt it.
In CT last year a very similar bill was
passed. I would even say a less onerous bill, since it allowed
existing magazines to be grandfathered. The result? The state turned
over 300,000 law abiding citizens into felons with the stroke of a pen. The police in Connecticut have made it clear that they will go door to door breaking into homes to arrest these "dangerous" citizens. The Governor's office has said that non-compliance with the gun law "will be taken into account" if a citizen calls on the police to respond to a crime. Is he saying that such citizens will not be given police protection, or is this a thinly veiled threat of the use of violence against Connecticut residents?
Armed with the knowledge of how the government of Connecticut has in effect declared war on a significant, do you still
want to go ahead with this bill? If the rate of
compliance in NJ is similar to that in CT you will be declaring over
half a million law abiding citizens to be felons, and crossing a line which Connecticut is probably wishing it hadn't crossed.
With all the issues in New Jersey that need to
be addressed - we have the highest taxes in the nation, and among
the highest crime rates in the nation - you really think the most
pressing issue to address is taking the police away from arresting
actual violent criminals, and sending them door to door to arrest
over half a million good, peaceful citizens?
A2777 (the potty bill)
Let me propose a scenario to you. Let's
say I want to defend my family in case of a home invasion. So I
purchase a firearm. Now, since I am only allowed 10 rounds, I have to
be a better shot than a police officer, so I need to practice a lot.
After a hard day's work, I drive an hour home, then an hour back to
the range, which is 3 blocks from my place of business, but the
already draconian New Jersey firearm travel laws say I have to drive the extra two hours
because somehow I would be a felon if I didn't. Never mind that as per New jersey law, my gun is unloaded and locked, and in a case
locked in the trunk of my car. The ammo is locked separately in another
case, also in the locked trunk of my car.
Now I go to the range and practice and
I'm coming home. I've worked hard all day and I'm tired, Perhaps I
feel a little too drowsy to make the hour trip home safely and so I
want to pull up to the drive in window at the Dunkin Donnuts to buy a cup of coffee. This
bill says that my doing so is so dangerous that I should spend 10
years (mandatory) in prison. Explain how that saves lives? You wrote the
law to explicitly exclude this situation. Why?
In fact, I would be less of a criminal
in your eyes if I walked in and robbed that Dunkin Donuts instead of
buying a cup of coffee. How does this
make any sense?
Of course, the bill does allow me to go into the Dunkin Donuts and use the restroom, as long as I don't buy a cup of coffee while I'm in there. And I find that the most egregious part of this
bill.
The thing that I find most outrageous, the most offensive, is that in
your arrogance, you thought that in the United States of America, a free, law
abiding citizen should need to have permission from you to go to the
bathroom.
Take your potty bill and flush it.
Your real agenda was revealed last year
when we heard senators speaking about gun control on a microphone they thought was
turned off, saying “confiscate confiscate confiscate.” Well
here's the agenda of the people of New Jersey, “recall,recall recall.”
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment