I'm proud of our Governor and amazed and angered at the NRA's hypocrisy. "Just enforce laws already written" is what the NRA continues to sing about, and it's exactly, no, precisely what the NRA has manipulated and blocked for decades, braying off tune and leading all astray.
We have laws to declare weapons destructive devices, true, and as fast as tomorrow the AR-15 and AK -47 and many other military rifle-submachine guns could be on that list within hours, and the NRA knows this, yet they keep blocking it from happening.
I did law enforcement and the ATF briefed all of us officially, and we know the difference, destructive device or not, it's easy to tell, simple.
But the NRA continues to deny that weapons being sold for 'sport' are in fact destructive devices, assault weapons. They know this, and force everyone thru needless pain, suffering, anger, confusion, while they roll in donations and membership fees, enough to live millionaire lifestyle lives.
True.
I hope the NJ law becomes fact across the country. There's no need to pervert our understanding of a well regulated militia and the security of our free state any further; you want to contribute to our security, then you take an oath, swear to it, and follow it thru like generations before you, taking and giving orders, and at the end of that, you'll realize in depth what these issues are, and what they mean to your state, city, town, your block.
The NRA ain't your friend, brother.
Gov just did it right.
12
Good. If you can't beat them head on, go around them.
3
Congress has authority to regulate commerce per Article 1, Section 8. The state of New Jersey cannot penalize private business if it refuses to go above and beyond existing federal laws. This is an unconstitutional move and will be stricken down and the state will suffer massive libel in lawsuits filed.
I recommend the residents of the state require their representatives to learn basic constitutional law before they start virtue signaling.
6
Nice job by Governor Murphy and his staff.
8
In typical myopic fashion a politician through executive action will impose his will on the people. He has pushed the boundaries far past where those governed would ever want him to go. Nobody asked for this. Like every other gun control measure in NJ it will have absolutely zero effect. What it will do it move the line that politicians are willing to cross. No doubt some future Republican governor will decide to utilize the banks to go after whatever he doesn't want. Using the financial sector to impose his will is a horrible, dangerous precedent.
3
@Peter. Do you not know that 87% of all Americans back stricter gun laws and background checks. How is this against the will of the people??
12
@Peter What's horrible and dangerous is the NRA's lockdown control over jellyfish politicians and its blockade against any form of control over mass-killing weapons and clips. Good for NJ and financial institutions taking a stand. It would be great if others would grow backbones and follow suit.
7
@Joel Goldstein - This financial sector move addresses neither background checks or gun laws.
Interesting the ways executive orders can be used: Gov. Murphy's in an attempt to enforce a sane weapons policy, and Pres. Trump's in an attempt to despoil our natural environment.
6
Cannabis is still illegal at the federal level yet those sellers have figured out how to run their businesses locally.
All these top down restrictions do is drive the gun market down to sympathetic state and local jurisdictions and into the shadows.
The illegal gun market is still thriving as any higher crime neighborhood can attest.
Do we want guns accountable nationwide or do we want to drive the trade into more obtuse, disparate, hidden corners?
Because 390 million guns don't just go away.
1
Don’t forget the insurance companies. They would love to sell liability insurance to gun owners. They are also good at lobbying for laws that favor their business. It would be a classic win win if the insurance lobby would go head to head with the gun lobby. Ah.. wishful thinking.
9
Background checks will make little difference, it's not as if someone is born with some sort of record identifying them as dangerous. Plenty of people without a record just haven't committed their crimes yet.
2
@mons But recent mass murderers would have been flagged. Typical argument against any attempt to reel in the gun lobby and unreasonable politicians.
2
This is an interesting approach. Let's hope other states take note and follow similar restrictions.
As a gun owner, I absolutely support universal background checks and I also look forward to a complete ban on all assault style weapons and accessories. Those who argue that assault weapons are protected under the 2nd amendment are either too ignorant to grasp the reality of these weapons or deliberately hiding behind the second amendment arguements to justify what they know is completely insane.
These weapons have no place in our sociaty.
14
@Blake - Assault weapons have been restricted since the NFA of 1934. Not sure what you are talking about.
1
NJ can’t (a) make the trains or buses run on time, (b) fix its roads (have you seen the potholes?), (c) get the school scores to budge upwards, or (d) reduce the rates of property tax increases. So why wouldn’t state leaders distract and redirect from decades of failure to deal with populist topics? They have done such a stellar job in the basics, so let’s do the master class, by all means!
8
New Jersey says it pays over one billion dollars in bank fees annually, so it has leverage over financial institutions.
If that's accurate, someone should be looking into such a huge expense. I'm concerned that NJ politicians are too cozy with the banks.
6
Not under the “ Trump Administration”! America needs to wake up fast and vote DEMOCRATIC in the White House in ‘20’ and bring back “ Courtesy, Professionalism and Respect again”! Trump Administration has “ Polorized” America and America needs a 360 degree turnaround from this “ BRAT” in the White House!
1
All those orders and feel good laws. And yet there will still be people shooting each other in Newark, Paterson, Trenton and Camden who don’t give 2 cents about anything Phil Murphy does. How about going after the criminals? How about locking criminals up for long sentences so they cannot go on shooting each other?
10
Living in NY and being more in touch with local news I can tell you they do pursue people in places like Newark that commit violent crimes with guns and they do put them in jail. The real issue is how these people illegally obtain guns. More often than not someone buys several guns in states with lax laws regulating guns and then transports across state lines and sells them on the street out of the trunk of their car.
Perhaps even someone from Nashville has committed such crimes.
1
@Michael How about keeping guns away from them?
1
Yay!
1
Murphy is a clown of the first order. It's another example of a state and its governor overstepping the bounds of power without thinking out the problem. It's all a political ploy.
6
Here’s another law: NJ has banned standard capacity magazines. Guess how many have been turned into the NJ State Police? ZERO.
6
@Michael I get your point, but it's a step in the right direction. Maybe no one is turning their's in but the manufacture and sale of additional magazines has stopped. Agin, it's a step in the right direction.
6
Liability insurance, thats a good thought but when I drive in west michigan, I would bet there are a higher number of drivers that don't carry insurance of any kind. I doubt you would be able to implement for gun ownership, any better than the DMV does on Liability insurance for driving a car. Guns are an integral part of many Americans upbringing, ANy 50's 60 ; 70;s Tv lin up showed a nation that solved its problems by shooting the supposed bad guy.
WHat would you expect from a lifetime of entetainment and glorification of murder even if was considered Righteous.
@MIchael S.
New Jersey has very strict laws requiring that drivers have liability insurance.
Barrett Firearms, just down the road from here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, will not sell to New York or California government agencies. New Jersey might be third.
3
Definition of a weapon by Wikipedia
"A weapon, arm or armament is any implement or device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a tactical, strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target."
We have seen time and time again the damage such devises can inflict.Modern weapons are designed to kill in a manner that our Founding Fathers did not fathom at the time they framed the Constitution.
2
Politicians are more like businessmen who would find "reasons" to supply what public or market want. it's the duty of media, educated professionals and intellectuals to build public opinion to force politicians to do the right thing .
and repealing 2nd Amendment would be a good start to build a grassroot movement in USA to effectively address this gun addiction for Americans, as suggested by many even "very conservative" supreme court judgres like Warren Burger.
2
While I agree that background checks are needed and an outright ban of guns would be a great idea, the decision of a governor to refuse to do business with banks and other companies with no legal basis is deeply disturbing.
This sounds an awful lot like a capricious decision that would be decried had it been targeted at a different group of people or companies. Lets say the governor decided that he did not want the state to deal with immigrant-owned businesses, or businesses owned by LGBTQ people, or owned by Jews - could he do that ? The outcry would be devastating, instantaneous and correct.
So how is this different ?
The banks and gun manufacturers are not doing anything illegal.
If Governor Murphy wants to force background checks, let him pass a law that requires it (I would be happy to vote for it).
Otherwise, this behavior seems arbitrary and illegal.
9
@G
It's different because gun manufacturers and wholesalers are not protected classes or even close to that status.
This is targeting certain obvious weaknesses of existing law. The article points out that 90% of guns used in crime are sold by 5% of dealers nationwide. That means people (who pass the background check) are buying lots of guns and reselling them without any checking.
It's very much like the opioid situation, where some small-town pharmacy would get crazy amounts of pills delivered. Obviously the manufacturers and wholesalers knew about this and did nothing, or were actively involved.
Is this the ideal and most effective way to deal with that? Of course not; private sales should be registered and all the other good stuff we know would help. But, maybe this kind of pressure will have some influence if it becomes more widespread.
3
Whereas the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the Federal government from taking more effective action against gun proliferation, therefore these powers are devolved to the States. It is incumbent on State legislators to take effective actions to try to address this national disaster.
4
And as the laws become more restrictive, and the shootings continue, the response will be...…. more restrictive laws. Until we reach a point where someone will propose all guns be banned. We're headed in that direction already, people simply haven't realized it yet. Simply put, we're having the same results, adding more regulations to guns, as we did to toughening our drug laws.
3
@Steve
This "slippery slope" theory is faulty. No one has proposed taking all guns away from people. You need a rifle to hunt or a hand gun for perceived self-protection, or you want to collect guns the way some people collect dolls? Fine. But when you reach the age that
you can apply for a driver's license in your state, take a written test and a firing range test to demonstrate that you know how to use a gun and store it safely. Get insurance so that if you kill or maim someone, they or their survivors can collect. And assault weapons should cease to be available to anyone but enlisted military. The Second Amendment says "militia." That's the National Guard. There are laws restricting driving, alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs for good reasons. Guns are more inherently dangerous.
7
@Linda i'm from Puerto Rico and here we have to go thru background check, we have to take a course and is required to have safety boxes. Even with all that the crime rate is high, the criminal Will not attend courses or nothing like that, the regulation is not a magic solutions, even after all the regulation the Mass shooting continue. The Real porpuse behind all this regulation is goverment control.
3
@Carlos Oh, you mean like all of Trump's actions and those of his sychophantic followers?
In order to drive a car in the US, you have to pass a written test and a performance test (most people take lessons for the latter); hold a valid license that must be renewed every few years but can be withheld for various offenses; and pay for insurance against accidents that injure others.
And that's for a car, an object that *can* injure and kill but isn't made expressly for those purposes.
So why aren't the same requirements the bare minimum for anyone who wants to own a gun, an object made for the express purposes of wounding and killing?
12
Great idea! Let's also throw in kitchen knives, warehouse box cutters, wood saws, axes and picks and most definitely baseball bats!
3
@Marshall J. Gruskin - What we really need is a license to become a parent. There is no training, certifications or need to demonstrate financial responsibility required. Look how this is working out for us.
1
The framers of this "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" did not intend that the disenfranchised haul cannons into their backyards and fire away.
12
The State of New Jersey must arrest and imprison for life anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm from a gun dealer. Gun dealers sell exclusively to white supremacists and race murders. Shame. Shame!
1
Imagine if states began pressuring banks and other businesses to say only what they wanted them to say. Consider that they want private firms to only do business with white people, or Christians. Perhaps New Jersey government has already made an arrangement with the New York Times to only provide digital content in the state that is approved by the governor.
Isn't that the the equivalent of what they are trying to do with the second amendment?
We already have background checks, nationwide, in all states, without exception. ALL, ALL retailers are REQUIRED to do background checks on ALL gun sales. There is no exception for gun shows or online sales for retailers.
New jersey is trying to force private business to enforce a law that does not exist that they do not have the authority to enforce.
12
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
They haven't thought ahead that far... just get the guns.
1
The 1st step to becoming a tyrannical govt is to take away the ability for the citizenry to fight back. Take away their guns. See: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China and most recently Venezuela.
In the 1770's did colonial america have a "well regulated militia" in place alongside british regulars. No, they did not. But they had access to the same guns the british regulars did. If they didn't, we'd still be singing God Save the Queen. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment they didnt expect that there would always be a "well regulated standing militia" alongside the military. They did expect that if it needed to be formed at some time, that it could be formed. However, without the necessary weapons, it would be impossible to form one.
That's the point entirely. And what I love the best is that that the most vocal supporters of no guns, have never even held one. Talk about the uninformed making decisions for the informed.
11
Silly bogus argument. First of all, we already have a tyrannical leader brought to power by Russia. Guns didn't help. Second, home assault rifles, while good for slaughtering kids in school won't defeat a national guard or army with full auto and grenades. And tanks. Nobody really wants all the guns. I want a pistol and shotgun to defend my home. And a bolt action to hunt with which is all you need if you are an actual sportsman. And happy to take a competency test. The rest is illusionary posturing.
6
Hence why no one wants to live in NJ.
10
NJ is the most densely populated state for good reason. A large number of celebrities, millionaires and billionaires choose to live in NJ. The entire eastern border is all coastline. There are large swaths of gorgeous farmland, beautiful lakes and rivers, mountains tall enough to ski in the north and the Pine Barrens National Park in the south. It's geographically diverse as well as culturally diverse. The main reason people leave is taxes; unfortunately, because NJ is a wealthy and populous state, we also shoulder the burden of poorer states with smaller populations, without having the benefit of a stronger voice in Washington D.C.
4
@Jersey Girl--i've lived in NJ for the past 33 years. It's the most overtaxed, corrupt, autocratic state in the nation. As soon as the kids are old enough I am out of NJ and will never set foot in it again.
4
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
At least some people seem to care.
4
Well done.... Fantastic new.... Someone doing something... At last
8
No matter how laudatory the intent, one wonders if the almighty state is now going to run business?
3
Well, if deaths of children didn't shift policy maybe avarice will. Money is, after all, most important.
5
Finally some modest action by a single state...and it only took how many mass murders? Maybe next there will be some modest action on health care, prescription drug costs, electoral reform, racism, mental health, presidential nepotism, a ballooning deficit, a lying president... etc etc.
4
The Socialist Republic of NJ strikes again. NJ has one of the toughest set of gun laws in the country. So what's the response? Make it even tougher for honest law abiding citizens to obtain weapons. Murphy has very specific plans to restrict legal,law abiding gun owners but no so specific plans for illegal gun ownership which causes the majority of the wrongful gun deaths.
We will never win this fight as long as we continue to focus on the wrong issue. It's becoming embarrassing to call myself a moderate liberal based on how irrational the liberal mentality is becoming. We are falling way down the slippery slope.
Here's a test. Which issue needs the most amount of energy focused on it?
1) gun control
Or
2) opioid addiction and deaths
If you answered gun control you need to do a little more research and stop the emotional, knee jerk reaction.
7
Socialist Republic huh? The Republicans are now enforcing fascist law with a minority government.
1
This isn't a novel idea, but just another Progressive Liberal Dem method to remove firearms from legal gun owners. They believe if you choke off the source of the firearms, then gun violence will decline. This is idiotic and a lie.
Gun violence is centered along several aspects, some of which are unconnected. We have mass shootings by mentally ill assailants, who, had there been in place mandatory reporting by medical professionals, many of these people would have been denied weapons. Others could have been prevented had families an avenue to notify the police of the threat.
Lack of enforcement of weapons laws already on the books. Most police officials will tell how they consistently arrest armed criminals and the weapons enhancement is either dropped or not charged. Repeat offenders are the norm in most urban centers, especially those impacted by gang and drug violence. Unspoken in the debate to revamp the criminal justice system is the aspect of firearm use to increase sentences. Nearly all the candidates are advocating less prison time across the board. This will lead to more violence on streets, not less. I guess most have forgotten the late 80's scourge of shooting deaths tied directly to the gang/drug trade. Get ready to relive those days.
The laws that Corasaniti and others advocate target lawful gun owners not the criminals. Why don't we instead demand mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and illegal gun possession and prohibit the early release of offenders.
7
I am much more worried about anti semites and white supremacists with guns than drug gangs that usually target their own.
3
Before you can drive a car, you must be trained, pass a driving test, and get insurance. Shouldn't there be similar constraints on having a lethal weapon?
Also, why does any civilian need to have a weapon capable of killing dozens in a minute?
4
@E
My wallet contains two similar looking cards, a driver's license and a handgun carry permit. Since we are comparing cars and guns, my driver's license is recognized in New Jersey, why isn't my carry permit?
6
There are more than 300 millions guns in this country. States should tax guns. $!00 per year per gun. If you don't want to pay the tax, turn the gun in for destruction. Waivers for active military and police officers. Enough of the crazy.
3
@Kristine--have you ever owned a gun? Held a gun? If not, then your opinion is not an informed opinion. Like someone who has never skied telling you that you shouldnt be allowed to ski.
1
@bored critic
None of us are in danger of being murdered by a skier unless we choose to go skiing and get in another skier's way. It would even be difficult to commit suicide that way. However, we are in danger of being murdered in schools, stores, churches, etc. A person doesn't have to own a gun to figure out that assault weapons aren't needed for hunting or perceived self-defense.
3
We need laws that enforce background checks on all weapons and ammunition sales by imposing criminal and civil penalties on the seller (accessory to murder, wrongful death suits).
6
Imagine a world where police officers don't have to fear that every traffic stop could be their last. Where they don't have to worry that they may accidentally shoot a "good guy" with a gun. Where they don't have to station themselves near schools and playgrounds in case there's a shooter. If you support police, you should support gun control.
6
Smart. Very Smart. Take away the money, people will modify their behavior.
Great idea and long overdue.
9
What a great new tactic for policy implementation. I could see Georgia, North Carolina and other red states issuing executive orders refusing to do business with banks that provide financial services for abortion providers. Who needs legislation!
2
But they have already effectively banned abortion so the gloves are already off. And yes, we all lose by our inability to compromise.
1
Can states require that gun owners carry liability insurance?
7
1. if all of the gun manufactures refused to sell by middlemen or directly arms to nj ( unlikely given the urge to make a sale) nj cd find international sources for its arms
2. this law is not posturing , i think. as it is trying to get a momentum in like states to pressure the institutions which support the gun business... maybe this wd end in a stalemate, but the buying power of states cd make grief that wd be intolerable for business. i surely hope so!
1
Some years ago a program to put special tags in ammunition to identify the batches and purchasers it was only in effect for a short time before it was stopped for some ridiculous reason. It did manage to solve at least one murder before the industry squashed it.
Let’s do it again.
2
In our state countless gun shops have been broken into and numerous firearms have been taken. It isn’t bad enough the homicides in Charlotte are already higher than the total of last years. Guidelines for security on gun shops should be considered, this restricts no ones 2nd amendment rights, and a more proactive police force in getting guns out of the wrong hands. Why is it so difficult today to put restrictions for our safety? So a few can have guns the rest of us have to live in fear. Great America, I don’t think so.
5
I think these are great policies being adopted by New Jersey. I had recently written that states with stricter gun laws should sue gun dealers in states that are indiscriminately exporting weapons. This idea seems more likely to survive a legal challenge. It basically says if you want our business, you need to comply with our requirements. This is done all the time with Requests for Proposals, and if the gun companies sell to New Jersey on a state contract, the requirements can be included in the contract. It's clear that on a national level, we are stuck politically on gun regulations due to cultural issues, so it makes sense to deal with this problem financially. And if a company doesn't comply, NJ also ought to make sure their pension funds are not investing in that gun manufacturer.
5
Gun manufacturers don't have to sell to New Jersey, either.. Some companies have refused to sell or provide service to anti gun states. This "pressuring" process can work two ways.
9
@cannoneer2
No guns in New Jersey? What the state would lose in trade, it would gain back in tourism.
7
@hotGumption that’s funny, the first thing I want when I enter NJ is to get out of NJ
2
It should be illegal to want to own a gun. The penalty must be life in prison. This law should apply to anyone who might ever conceive of visiting or living in New Jersey. The gun companies, their employees, shareholders and customers must have their assets confiscated to pay for the foregoing common sense gun control measures.
Should do this with insurance companies as well. Hike rates for those with semi-automatic and large clip accepting guns in their homes, and watch ownership fall.
13
My homeowners’ insurance asked me if I had a trampoline on my property; surely a gun in the home is more dangerous than a trampoline? Good on New Jersey!
9
@E.B. It's called a magazine. Not a clip. Someone with no knowledge shouldn't comment.
2
Huh, what if manufacturers and retailers of gun-related law enforcement equipment get together and decide not to sell any of that equipment to New Jersey?
3
If they restrict out of vindictiveness they should be restricted from selling period. We cannot let business be our governing body.
4
That would be illegal under antitrust laws.
I do not own a gun and likely will never own a gun. I, however, do not believe gun control, of any kind, will work. The western world has turned its back on family, community and the pursuit of happiness. Instead, we’ve become slaves to corporate, government and institutional interests which have taken us away from such fundamental needs of ours. Having been taken away, our collective anxiety has risen to a level where there is no time / tolerance to take care of or even begin to understand what is happening within the lives of other’s, including our siblings, parents, children, immediate family, our community and our humanity.
Those barely able to cope- not being heard and/or considered- have it far worse than the rest of us; where there are far more today than yesterday wishing to do something dramatic as a push-back. Making guns less accessible does not solve this growing problem of ours. Those still choosing to make a statement may find more unimaginable, more inhumane and more sinister ways to do so. If we truly wish to reduce these mass-shootings, we must bring more family, community and the pursuit of happiness back into our lives. Gratefully, those at the edge of bleakness / those who feel they do not matter / those less able to cope, will follow our lead.
10
The whole western world? It seems to me that there are western countries that are quite happy without owning firearms.
6
@Tom
Yup, Tom, so many young people do not even know what's been lost along the way. Sad.
2
@So basically you are prescribing thoughts and prayers in a world full of nihilism?
2
I'm confused. Right now, today, background checks are done at any FFL dealer.
There is an issue with the federal requirement of a 3 day time limit to process the background check, but that requires a change at the federal level. States can add their own requirements.
The state can pass its own laws to have things like waiting periods, magazine limits, etc. or even gun design features.... as California and Mass have done. "Red flag" laws are a state initiative and would be incorporated in the state background check requirements for dealer sales. Post-sale issues would be a state issue, not a dealer issue.
What generally has not been done is regulating person-to-person sales (or other things like inheritance).
The problems get complex and vary by what you define as the outcomes. Strawman purchases are illegal today. Most mass shooters have no criminal background.... or mental illness diagnosis. It can be misleading to say "event A was done by person B who in retrospect was flaky" therefore we need to round up all the flaky folks. The problem is the signal-to-noise issue when the criteria include 40% of the population.
There are things like ghost guns (gun assemblies not fully finished), stolen guns, and illegally smuggled guns....... but aside from 'ghost guns,' these things are already illegal.
So, other than the PR value, I don't understand what NJ is doing. Are they going to establish speed limits on their highways, too? Make robbing banks illegal?
24
@CW
Yes it's more liberal posturing. Gunmakers don't sell directly to the public.
10
@CW--its complete PR pandering to the progressive socialist base.
3
@CW
So I guess you are saying the system now is great and that nothing is wrong?
Why mess with success?
It is 2019 and there have been hundreds of people shot and more mass shootings than days on the calendar.
Things are not "fine"
4
The guns, the shootings, are the symptom of a much deeper problem - the people.
Sanity isn't the issue, regulation is. The Second Amendment calls for "A well-regulated militia..." While all states have some form of a state militia/police force that does answer to the civil government, no everyone who currently keeps and bears arms is under their authority.
Frankly I want "good guys with guns" but i want them screened, evaluated, trained and qualified and under the authority of the civil government. I want them to make regular drills, have their arsenals inspected to see that everything they claim is there and properly stored. I want re-evaluations, screenings, and qualifications with the provision that nobody can sell or purchase weapons without being a member of the citizen militia.
We have anarchy right now. More weapons than there are people and only about 30% of Americans actually keep and bear them. That means that the majority doesn't want them in their possession. But we have 30% of the population who have possession of 100% of those weapons and most are not under the authority of the civil authorities. That needs to stop.
55
@George N. Wells It's always amazed that when I joined the Army I wasn't allowed to handle a firearm without first going through several hours of training and testing to ensure that I knew how to safely handle a firearm but any civilian can own a firearm without ever having to demonstrate any ability to safely or legally operate it.
I could care less if my neighbor owns a M-240 machine gun. I care VERY much that if they do, they've demonstrated that they know how to safely operate it, understand the laws of when/where they can operate it and do not have a history of violent behavior/poor impulse control. Right now none of that exists.
8
I don’t want them to own it. Eventually it will get used. It’s the lethality of weapons that is out of control. A shotgun or single handgun with a normal sized magazine is not nearly the problem a SAW WILL one day present. Not maybe, WILL.
3
But what does your neighbor need a machine gun for? Not for hunting or any other legitimate reason.
13
It is a sign of how extreme and far to the right the discussion of guns has become in this country that this article predicts (correctly I’m sure) massive pushback from gun manufacturers because the NJ policy would prohibit the state from purchasing guns from manufacturers that allow sales to (1) the mentally ill, (2) domestic abusers, (3) violent convicted felons, (4) drug dealers and (5) those on a federal terrorist watch list. Seems to me like pretty sensible and limited regulation.
147
@MPH1960
The pushback is because gun mfg don't sell directly to the public any more than a car company like Ford does.
9
@MPH1960 A gun manufacturer cannot know if a future buyer is mentally ill (private health info), a domestic abuser (often not even a record unless convicted, or any other circumstance you mention. Guns are sold by dealers, at trade shows, and privately.
America needs gun control now. We are tired of being killed. Tired of being afraid to go out in public for fear of being shot. Real backround checks. Ban the AK-47. Ban weapons of war. Ban high capacity magazines. We need gun control now. Ray Sipe
5
Most comments from fellow readers are blown out of proportion and are irrelevant to the subject. Instead of demonizing a huge portion of your fellow citizens who never do anything illegal with their guns you should focus on those who do.
Btw why would NJ spend that much on “fees”?
6
@Rufus E Leibovitz
Why does any civilian need a weapon capable of killing dozens in a minute?
1
@Rufus E Leibovitz
They probably spend that much on fees bc they are incompetent.
@Rufus E Leibovitz, Uh, their leading politicians are in the 1% and they make sure a good-sized portion of their budget is given to their buddies. This is the same in every state, and exemplified by the Federal government.
1
I really dont like the direction New Jersey is taking so I think I will stop doing business with them like paying taxes
5
Every bit helps stem the random mass murders. The Feds are gutless but the States do not have to be.
6
Demonstrating in front of Congress or legislation in New Jersey is too lame. Demonstrate in front of gun factories and tax them for the steel to produce this destructive device to the nth degree. Let them go down the drain to bankruptcy.
2
Very good move.
1
Great to see Gov Murphy and supporters take these actions as key state in the National fight for reasonable gun ownership guidelines.
Good going!
3
I believe that requiring individuals with assault type rifles to have a license is needed to assure that they are only in the hands of responsible people. I would also believe that the law enforcement community would fully support this type of requirement to better assure their own safety.
3
This same technique can be used to hinder abortion providers in some states. Be careful what you wish for.
4
@mbpman
What do you mean...these type of measure are already being used in several states
1
Abortions is the constitutional right—it’s spelled out in the penumbras clause. Not so the gun. There is no the right to the gun.
@mbpman, Hinder by doing background checks on the women seeking abortions?
Don't think for an instant this method won't be used against other things somebody in power doesn't like (I think somebody already mentioned abortion rights) if it goes unpunished. Ideas like this need to be smacked down hard, and the people who propose them need to feel some pain.
4
@AllJ
When you say “somebody” are you referring to the 69% of Americans that are in favor of want control?
1
Good for New Jersey! If bills are sent to the US Senate to languish and die then the states must take up the cause! I hope this prompts many states - Pennsylvania are you listening? - to take dramatic steps to curb gun buying - except for hunting, NOBODY needs guns, especially high powered military assault weapons. PERIOD!
2
As someone who's signed documents in this state for certain other people's right to have a firearm, if you think that nothing needs to be done to protect people from the lack of laws regarding firearms, you are acting very foolishly.
If the Federal Government would actually do their job, this wouldn't be necessary. But when you have even sellers at gun shows talking about how they shouldn't be able to sell their firearms to some of their own buyers, you need to understand this is not a problem of law abiding, upstanding citizen. This is about how a minority of wealthy but sick people have lobbied to allow school shootings, and murder so they can make a teeny bit of profit above their already magnificent wealth.
This is not about video games. This is not about mental health, no matter how many people respond to that dog whistle. It is strictly about the availability and absolutely ridiculous number of firearms sold in this country.
4
It’s stories like this that remind why I live in a blue state. While I realize that taxes are high, it beats living in some Red Welfare State where Republicans strive to out do another to make guns as easy as possible.
3
Barrel-loading, flint-firing muskets. THAT is what the Second Amendment guarantees.
No weapons of war: cannons, bombs, artillery, or any newer technology like SAW and miniguns, nor fighter jets, rocket launchers, Apache attack helicopters or nuclear missiles.
These weapons of war are not guaranteed by the Second. It's a right to bear arms. So bear muskets! But I'll give gun owners a break: single shot firearms with current ammunition. That fits the bill quite nicely.
Take a semi-auto firearm back in time. You know, the kind that you can fire 90-120 rounds per minute. Take this back to 1790 and the person will simply conclude that this gun is a fully auto machine gun. A weapon designed for mass killing and maximum casualties.
Semi-auto as they currently exist, and any new technology that emerges are weapons of war, or military weapons. Ban them all.
"Won't work!" Really? We already ban military weapons and I can't buy one "down the street" of from any of the many, MANY criminal Americans selling hundreds of firearms to felons under the joke "private sales." Strawman purchasers who need to go to jail for a long time.
So since we don't have tanks rolling through Oakland and Detroit, we can ban semi-auto firearms and see them disappear. It will take time, but our grandchildren are worth it.
2
@Bike Fanatic
Do you also think that the First Amendment only applies to quill and parchment or printing presses as they existed in the 18th century? So the government should be able to shut down the internet or demand you purchase a license to post anything?
Do you think that Fourth Amendment definition of effects can't possibly include your phone, car, computer or HIPPA records?
If not then why do you think that the Second Amendment only applies to 18th century firearms?
3
@Bike Fanatic
You would think a strict constructionist conservative would support that.
There is also the "well-regulated militia" aspect.
There’s one heck of a big difference. Pen to paper doesn’t kill. Get real each time a gun toting person tries to defend killing machines they just don’t compare Apples to apples. Those machines you tried to use just aren’t in the same category. Try again I’m sure you will. They always come up with something new to justify.
Some positive moves from a Life Member of the NRA: All semi-automatics can be "assault" weapons. Need universal background checks. Raise age to purchase firearms to 21; to 25 for semi-automatics with written recommend from 3 citizens as to competency and character. Speedy trials and executions for mass killers.
Hire 5,000 new FBI agents. Fix the National Instant Criminal Background System. It is not instant and does contain all the data from states and local municipalities. Fix it.
5
Or we could be reasonable and look at the statistics. The so called "assault weapons" ban promulgated by the Democrats is nothing more than useless virtue signaling.
In 2017, the United States had 403 deaths from rifles. It also had:
1. Daily Heart Disease Deaths: 1,773
2. Daily Cancer Deaths: 1,641
3. Daily Medical Malpractice Deaths: 685
4. Daily Accident Deaths: 465
5. Daily Lower Respiratory Disease Deaths: 439
6. Daily Stroke Deaths: 401
7. Daily Alzheimer Deaths: 332
8. Daily Diabetes Deaths: 229
9. Daily Drug Deaths: 192
10. Flu: 152
For those who argue that rifle deaths ought to be compared to deaths by other voluntary activities, rather than disease, consider the following six examples:
1. Daily Drunk Driving Deaths: 29
2. Daily Deaths from Crossing the Street: 16
3. Daily Distracted Driving Deaths: 9
4. Daily Deaths by Knives and Other Sharp Instruments: 4
5. Daily Deaths from Bicycles: 2.7
6. Daily Deaths by Hammers and Other Blunt Objects: 1.27
Again, the daily number of deaths from all types of rifles combined is 1.1.
8
But we live in an overly emotional, irrational, and fundamentally innumerate society, so don’t expect any logical considerations on this or any other issue.
2
@JDK
so its ok to sell guns to people who can't pass background checks?
1
This comparison is ridiculous. Life carries risks, some of which cannot be controlled or prevented. Gun deaths are prevented by the lack of a gun.
1
Our democratic institutions no longer function. We now regulate through civil procedures rather than by making and enforcing criminal laws. We rely instead on the deep state (tollgate vigilantes) to regulate through the power of the checkbook. According to this article: "Beside background checks, the state will also not do business with retailers who do not have policies prohibiting firearm sales to people with a history of mental illness or convictions involving domestic abuse, among other red flags."
This is the same situation that's behind the massive protests in Hong Kong. That is to say, even the Chinese Communists can't seem to use the rule of law to regulate their citizens anymore. According to Lik and Ives (09 AUG 2019): "China’s civil aviation authority demanded that the airline bar staffers who have supported illegal assemblies or acts of violence from working on flights to mainland China."
Cite:
Lik Katherine and Mike Ives. Hong Kong Protesters Plan to Stay in the Airport for Days. NY Times, Aug. 9, 2019. Permalink: https://nyti.ms/2YPN0U1
2
Gun Safety is the most important issue facing us citizens today, and this New Jersey Governor is one of the few , courageous, politicians willing to help us save lives thru gun violence! Where are the muted POTUS candidates regards Gun Safety? They talk tough on other issues, but avoid all discourse when it comes to Gun Safety! Why, what are they so afraid of, the crooks in the NRA per chance?
3
It's time to do something, the majority of Americans.
I'm tired of hearing that good guys with guns will help stop tragedies. If that was the case why are shootings the new normal and why aren't we the safest country in the world if we have the highest amount of gun ownership? The next closest being Yemen, and they have nowhere near the same amount of guns per capita. Not great company to keep necessarily.
How about the line that criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Sure they might but what if they aren't as readily available? We have start somewhere.
Mental health.... then why aren't we increasing funding to social services? In ADDITION to other measures.
Video games & music must be the cause...wait other countries listen to the same music and play the same games so where is their shooting epidemic?
I'm sure there are a multitude of other "whatabout" scenarios that those opposed to any type regulation will throw out there.
It's time the NRA actually stood for something other than marketing weapons capable of the most horrific violence and espousing divisive rhetoric.
Sure not all guns or owners are bad and it's time for them to step up and try to influence the change we need to make to save lives.
Stop kicking the NRA can down the road, they do not own our political system and at some point our politicians will be forced to act and address the will of the rest of the country. We can force that change. Get informed and VOTE.
1
If the NRA and their backers in the firearms industry were smart they would take a page from the film industry and push for self regulation to prevent government regulation. The NRA and firearms manufacturers could work together to create a system in which the NRA through dealers, range operators and other parties could create gun safety programs (many of which already exist) and insist that gun dealers not sell to anyone who hadn't passed an approved firearms safety program. This would put some teeth behind the NRA's claim to represent responsible gun owners and give the NRA some much needed credibility on the gun safety front. Beyond gun safety they could also require a clean bill of health from a doctor before allowing a purchase. While people like to freak out about mass shootings the reality is more than 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides or accidents, not mass shootings and murders.
1
@Cyclocrosser Yet more NRA babble about gun ownership and how to avoid real, substantive safe ownership and crime prevention. I live in a state with strict and, usually effective, requirements. I'm proud of that. But, illegal gun sales and smuggling flood urban districts (Baltimore, for example) making them some of the deadliest in America. Other states support this violence through sales to straw buyers and smugglers. They, in turn, sell them to criminals. Don't get me wrong, I own and collect guns but every one of them was purchased legally under Maryland's gun control laws. None of them wear the brand of mass-killing weapons.
1
There are basically only a few transactions when there are no background checks; Private sales, transfer between friends and family, and upon death within trusts and estates. The so-called gun show loop hole is almost non-existent in all states requiring background checks. I don't know of any gun dealer that does not do a back ground check through the state or federal government. Criminals though, and other people who want to avoid background checks can easily do so. If you're at a gun show or dealer and want something and there's a background check there's a way to avoid it through illegal straw sales. A dealer has no way of knowing what any purchaser will do after a sale is approved. Only if there are multiple sales to single person or other possible tell-tale signs would a dealer see a red flag. Then of course there are the gun runners. They buy guns in their state of choice and then travel with their contraband to the market of their choice.
Pressuring banks and retailers may help but it seems inappropriate for government to be intervening in the market place.
A better answer might be in writing laws that don't punish legal and innocent gun owners. Each time politicians declare bans will take place or confiscation or other restrictions, gun sales soar.
And don't forget criminals. Why not pressure them? That's where the problems originate. Here's a novel strategy. Make criminals responsible. Cut them off. Enforce current laws to stop criminals.
8
@Jay which politician has advocated confiscation of guns? And since when does the government not interfere in the marketplace? And maybe we ought to try more thorough background checks that don’t have a three day limit, and maybe we can limit the amount of ammunition and guns we allow an individual to buy before we decide these policies don’t work. And maybe we can try some other new ideas and policies and see if they work because you know we really do have a big problem in this country when an angry or unstable person can walk into a store and get enough guns and ammunition to shoot thirty people in two minutes. You would think that lawful gun owners would have some concern about that.
1
No point fighting the 2nd amendment! But just like cars and trucks, guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. As such, gun ownership should require liability insurance coverage, just like your car or truck. If your gun is; given, sold or lost to an incompetent, unstable or dangerous person who uses it to injury others, you the gun owner should be financially liable for the injuries, hence your liability insurance would kick in. So for sure in urban areas, laws should be enacted to require gun liability insurance. No gun insurance? - then the lawyers should seek compensation from the gun owner for the wounded and maimed in ways that lawyers are very good at. Enjoy your gun but be fully responsible for its use or misuse.
6
@Robert
For all the phony gun owners who pretend to care:
You know who I am thoroughly sick of hearing about? "Law-Abiding Gun Owners," that’s who.
I am tired of having to buy them all a cookie every time somebody shoots up a school or a church or a restaurant or a mall.
I’m tired of taking them into consideration. I have no more room for their feelings, or their phony innocence.
There are no more seats left on my funeral bus. There are too many coffins on board these days.
2
@AACNY
You say punish the end users? We do that already. What we need to do is punish the dealers and manufacturers that allow these weapons to get into the wrong hands. If you are a gun manufacturer or dealer you should be darn sure who you’re handing that weapon to. The argument is always but how would I know what they’re going to do? The answer is take reasonable steps. Right now, all gun manufacturers want to do is sell as many guns as possible and rid themselves of any and all responsibility.
"A Novel Abortion Control Strategy: Pressure Banks and Retailers.
Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, wants Planned Parenthood and Plan B manufacturers to take steps to keep abortion from falling into the wrong hands.
Mississippi intends to stop doing business with health care providers and pharmacies that fail to adopt policies, like conducting pregnancy counseling services, to stop medicines like Plan B from falling into the wrong hands, becoming the first state to take such stringent action against the firearms industry.
The state will also apply pressure on major financial institutions, seeking information from banks that do business with Mississippi about their relationships and policies involving pharmaceutical companies and health care providers."
Scary, huh?
13
@W
Yes, state governments using their financial clout to effect changes they can't do directly is a little worrying. The comparison that comes to mind for me is the Texas law about businesses supporting BDS. This particular action seems fine to me because there is no conflict with protected acts or classes. It would be one thing to refuse to do business with a retailer that donates to the Republican party. Refusing to buy guns from irresponsible manufacturers and retailers is far less dangerous.
1
@W
This is a complete false equivalence. In a nutshell what NJ is saying is if you do business with scofflaws, we will hold you to account.
Are you suggesting that there are scofflaw abortion clinics? They would be shut down in a heartbeat. Scofflaw gun dealers? Not so much.
W
Anti-abortion groups have tried financial pressure for decades, gun control is just catching up.
It seems to me one way to deal with the issue of mass shootings ought to be to get credit card processors to use their spending pattern algorithms -- the ones they use to identify fraudulent purchases on your card in Togo when you are physically in Boston -- to flag unusual ammunition purchase patterns. If someone who never buys more than a box of ammo a year suddenly buys 3,000 rounds in a single month or over several months, that should get flagged for a visit from law enforcement, just to assess the person and their behavior. Not taking away any guns or ammo, just asking why the sudden interest in stockpiling.
8
@Steve Lubetkin
“I am stockpiling ammunition in case any government employed goon comes around trying to interfere with my rights.” Do you want to be the LEO who has that conversation?
1
Using the power of government to coerce people who conduct perfectly legal activities into changing. What could be wrong with that? Why not try it with abortion, or birth control, or support for LGBTQ rights?
11
@Wake, Where have you been for the past 3 years? Trump and GOP states are passing ridiculous "heartbeat" laws, or claiming "religious" reasons for companies not to include birth control in healthcare coverage, as well as challenging discrimination laws claiming they're not meant to include LBGT.
@Independent American
I dislike all of those things, strongly. But the analogy would be if Trump told the federal government not to do business with any employer who offered birth control
2
The most frequently heard -- and compelling to me -- argument against gun control measures is that the problem is beyond solution because of the number of guns already in circulation.
But practical measures are at hand, provided there is a willingness to adopt them.
The federal government -- in cooperation with gun and ammunition manufacturers -- could devise ways of bringing a small number of defective guns and ammunition into general circulation and use.
The effect of “exploding” guns and ammunition on the habits of the nation’s gun enthusiasts would be profound.
Some Innocents would be killed and injured along the way, but the reduction is gun murders is likely to be quite substantial.
Yes, a small number of hunters and target shooters would be among the victims, but as a result of their avid support of the NRA, they hardly qualify as innocents when it comes to the spread of gun violence in this country.
Just saying.
3
@A. Stanton Many enthusiasts make their own ammunition. Order some shells (metal casing) and a slug and add gunpowder. The press necessary to fuse the elements into a live round is fairly simple.
I get it, you are being tongue in cheek but the fact that you have 3 likes at this time is alarming.
1
@James
Guns Don’t Kill People, Bullets Do
--- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Controls on the sale of ammunition would be beneficial for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would encourage dumbbell gun owners -- of whom there are more than a few -- to try their hands at making bullets in their garages and basements,
Gun owners are already responsible for accidentally shooting a significant number of their family members and fellow hunters.
Vice President Dick Cheney did it.
The carnage likely to result from home-based efforts to manufacture bullets would likely be similar to the many deaths attributed to home-brewed alcohol during Prohibition,
Tragic yes, but I am prepared to believe that many of the lunkheads who will dispose of themselves in this way are badly wanted in Heaven.
1
@A. Stanton
I made many thousands of rounds in my spare room when my daughter was shooting competitively. I am a very accident prone person and never had so much as a smashed finger.
It is a very simple process and easy to do safely.
Require gun owners to insure firearms through their homeowners insurance. Let the market set the rate. If weapons are used or lost, hold owners liable.
15
Make it a law that every firearm must be insured individually. Just like a vehicle, boat, plane etc that could be involved in catastrophic events. Hold gun owners accountable and develop a compensation source for victims. Let’s stop wringing our hands and start to do things to reduce the intolerable level of carnage caused by guns in the US.
34
While may Times readers seem to think this is some great move by the state of New Jersey, it's not. They are taking advantage if your ignorance to make it seem like they are bold and decisive. They're not.
First, gun manufacturers and retailers are in the business of manufacturing and selling guns (obviously). That means all of their sales are already subject to a background checks, and they have been for over 50 years (Gun Control Act of 1968). The sales without a background check are limited to used guns between individuals.
Second, requiring "policies" prohibiting firearm sales to people with a history of mental illness or convictions involving domestic abuse is, again, already covered by federal law.
Third, to the extent NJ's requirements go beyond the federal prohibitions to areas like those on the terrorist watch list, that would be impossible to comply with, even if the retailer wanted to. It's not like Glock can call up the DOJ and ask them to email over the classified list of suspected terrorists. Like the NY SAFE Act's requirement that ammo sales be registered, once officials see the practical problems, it requirements will be quietly dropped.
So what does this accomplish: nothing. Is there a downside? Yes. Gun owners like me see a state government try to side step the voters. It lowers the trust between each side, and makes us less likely to compromise.
In fact, this reminds me that I need to go re-up my NRA membership...
18
@Eric NJ is not sidestepping the voters. Most voters want more gun restrictions. And your response, I respectfully suggest, is inverse. What you should support is a reasonable compromise, so the concerns you have can be included. It's the intransigence of gun advocates that leads to extraordinary measures. Doing nothing is unacceptable.
4
@Eric This reminds me; email my Republican NRA owned Congressman. He will email me back thoughts and prayers that I do not die in a Walmart shooting.
3
@Eric,
Your concern trolling is noted, but...
"Citing a study by the Brady Campaign, a gun-control organization, the governor’s office said that about five percent of dealers across the country were responsible for providing 90 percent of the guns used in crimes.
New Jersey’s plan requires that retailers, among other steps, implement policies to “prevent, detect and screen for the transfer of firearms to straw purchasers or firearm traffickers.” "
What it accomplishes is perhaps putting pressure on that 5%. We all know that trafficking is why there is a ridiculous guns/person ratio... you don't need multiple copies of the same handgun for self- or home- defense, and it is quite certain that the people who buy them don't have them all nicely mounted on a wall as an art-form. They get resold at a markup, and make their way to gangs of one kind or another.
I can't see what rational "voter" would object to making at least a small dent in these black-market operations.
The dealers know that they are participating, and manufacturers and wholesalers would have the data as well. It's very much like the opioid thing where insane numbers of pills were sold to a few small-town pharmacies.
2
Dear Governor Murphy (and Staff): Your thinking both here and your recent endorsement of the CEOs' "Statement" that business' obligations go way beyond their shareholders is exactly what is needed to help evolve capitalism. That is, acting creatively through government to induce businesses to step up to become active problem-solvers in helping to address the difficult problems of our time. Many from both the left and right will not see it as either possible or even desirable, and there certainly will be lots of cynicism. But we badly need this as our joint societal problem-solving capacity is so enfeebled. There actually are precedents for pro-society/pro-environmental business actions if you look beyond the bad actors. There are no compelling reasons not to seek more (or even much more) of them. So, please stay on this track. A few more things: please be more nuanced about "mental illness." It's way too much of a generalization to blame this class of people. Hold brainstorming sessions. If some banks, retailers, or even gun manufacturers truly step up, give them public credit, and ask victims' families to consider joining you. If this starts to work, share lessons learned with other states, Presidential candidates, and even countries. And, some day if you wish, feel free to review a report I sent you and your staff 15 months ago my class and I did on much more your Administration could do along these lines. If not, then not, but please keep exploring this new policy option.
4
@Matt Polsky. Did you really say 'creatively through government'?? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that government is creative or efficient at much of anything.
1
Yes. It takes political will and a little thinking outside the box to make any change possible.
I would’ve loved to see a ratio of gun sales by public entities versus private sales, by state. If most guns are indeed purchased by our law enforcement, this idea could send gun manufacturers reeling.
3
Money is the universal language everyone speaks and NJ has decided what its going to say. I bet everyone is listening.
14
Everyone knows that the NRA owns the Republican party. D Trump is certainly intimidated if not scared spit-less by their power.
It will take the states creating and enforcing their own laws, to bypass the members of Congress and the Senate that the NRA owns lock, stock and barrel.
Hats off to the states that are trying to make Americans safer from needless gun violence. I sincerely hope they prevail for the sake of us all.
23
Aren't these the same kind of pressure tactics the Southern Democratic Party used against free people during Reconstruction? Banks wouldn't loan to free peple unless they voted Democrat? Employers would fire free people employees unless they voted Democrat. Seems like the Dems are using similar pressure tactics against people and companies who are exercising their Second Amendment Rights, just like free people did to exercise their Fifteenth Amendment Rights after the Civil War.
9
@John Smith
Right to bear arms does not mean that individuals with history of mental illness, violence and criminal activity should be allowed to own guns. Firearm dealers that don’t check their customers are responsible for straw purchases that fuel illegal gun proliferation in states with more stringent gun laws. There will still be enough compliant dealers that can provide quality firearms to citizens that meet these common sense standards.
10
@John Smith
As a Constitutional Originalist, I agree we must defend our right to bear the exact same arms that citizens bore when the Second Amendment was passed. If only Walmart would sell ammunition for my musket.
36
Ct: yes a musket for the standing militia to dvr the country. How did the Heller decision ever see the light of day to have now more guns than people and honestly large magazines and assault weapons as easy as buying anything without regulation and insurance or even registered like another deadly weapon a car.
1
Kudos to Governor Murphy, for leveraging his power to do something, and for his values, which put this “issue,” on the table.
13
It will be interesting to see if moves toward making guns less threatening (e.g. assault weapons bans) reduce the political polarization that has made solutions hard to find. Many 2nd amendment people still feel that all guns are under attack in the US. One can imagine a world in which concerned citizens get together to discuss solutions and to listen to each other. With some real effort we could make progress on even big innovations, e.g. reducing the financial and hassle challenges of personalized guns, a change that might rapidly reduce both bodega robberies ad mass shooting.
1
The NRA has convinced its followers that any gun restrictions at all represent a first step towards eliminating personal ownership of guns altogether. Therefore they oppose any sensible restrictions entirely, as if such restrictions represented an outright ban.
In this way personal gun ownership itself has emerged as an obstacle to any compromise whatsoever — and is therefore itself a grave threat to public safety.
It certainly wouldn’t be necessary as a practical matter to ban guns altogether in order to make Americans much safer. But as a political matter, banning guns entirely may be the only way forward, since compromise is apparently not possible.
Thus have I at long last come to the conclusion that gun ownership is a threat to my family’s safety. You don’t care about my family’s safety? Then I don’t care about the gun you own for sport or for protection.
Let’s ban personal ownership of guns and let’s not beat around he bush about it. I’m for repeal of the Second Amendment.
5
Gun ownership is permitted in countries without our second amendment. Regulation of firearms is permitted under the second amendment. I am a gun owner and am fully comfortable with regulation including more extensive background checks, red flag laws and age limits. I don’t support bans, but if they are enacted I expect to be paid full value for legally acquired property.
1
@Kevin
All you have to do is get 2/3 of both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to repeal the Second Amendment.
snicker.
But I'm not surrendering my guns. And there are literally millions of people like me. Trying to ban private ownership of weapons would start a civil war or low level insurgency.
2
Unfortunately corporations have more say in our government than people do.
5
@Mathias in this case it is fortunate since the people, via their representatives and president, are incapable of acting.
@Mathias
corporations ARE people, thank the current SCOTUS members picked by Bush et al.
1
@Mathias Yes, that 1st Amendment sure is a pesky thing.
2
Would the cheering be just as vocal if those same institutions were disassociating themselves from medical practices that perform abortions, from companies onboard with the Green New Deal or spokespersons who take strong positions on gun control?
10
@From Where I Sit I don't know and I don't care, because someone has to do something about gun violence and the cowards in Washington aren't up for it.
16
@Roberta
Approximately 40,000 people die in vehicle collisions each year. Somewhere around 1 in 4 of those involve alcohol. Should banks stop making auto loans? Should insurers increase all drivers rates to the level paid by those in assigned risk pools?
6
@ From Where I Sit
We passed laws concerning being 21 to purchase alcohol, I assume you would be for passing the same laws for owning and purchasing guns? We passed laws wearing seat belts, so I assume you would be for laws that ban high capacity magazines? If you say no to those laws your argument above has little foundation to stand!
1
New Jersey already has incredibly restrictive gun laws, requiring a police issued permit to even purchase a firearm. The vast majority of sister states , save Illinois, New York and California, have rejected this regulatory scheme. The premise of the proposed regulation is specious. It makes no sense to boycott manufacturers which do not require background checks because manufacturers wholesale weapons and ammunition to licensed dealers or wholesalers that sell to such dealers. They do not engage in retail sales and in any event, the background check regulatory requirement is established by federal and in a few cases state law. A state boycotting a financial institution which does business with a corporation that manufacturers firearms or ammunition is probably just an invitation to a lawsuit unless the Eleventh Amendment bars such a claim. Under the Governor's proposal, New Jersey will refuse to to deal with a firearms dealer or financial institution that markets a lawful product or has financial ties to a firearms manufacturer, on the grounds that the manufacturer does not mandate background checks at a retail level that supercede state and federal law requirements.
13
Presumably the 11th Amendment wouldn’t bar a suit against NJ officials in their personal capacity for violating Second Amendment rights, which of course are ultra ultra super-duper sacrosanct.
2
Stop it! You’re making too much sense. The facts don’t support the state action. New Jersey is doing something which, even if it’s hollow and ineffective, is better than nothing in the eyes of its intended audience.
5
I suspect a state has the right to choose its own suppliers as far as the Constitution is concerned. I don’t know whether this action violates some part of the state constitution—probably not.
This is a creative way to address illegal gun sales. Economic boycotts, by states, municipalities, businesses and citizens, may be the most effective way to address our gun crisis if Washington is unable to pass sensible gun safety legislation.
3
I applaud the Governor's actions. It would not be necessary if the NRA would mandate training and background checks on all gun sales.
10
@GBG
Although it does appear that the NRA makes our gun laws, they don't. It is up to the states, since the federal government has shown no inclination to do anything at the federal level, to mandate training for those who want to own guns. Some states do, some don't. To obtain my concealed carry license in Illinois I had to take 16 hours of training, pass a test, and sit for an interview with the local police department. In Pennsylvania I filled out a form and that was that. Both states required background checks.
2
@AndyTrue but the NRA could use their power to create a system by which gun dealers would refuse to sell to people who hadn't passed a NRA approved gun safety program, wouldn't sell to people who refuse to safely store their firearms, etc. Industry self regulation is hardly a new idea - just look at the MPAA. The MPAA isn't a government entity but good luck finding a movie theater willing to show a film not rated by the MPAA! Honestly, if the NRA was smart they'd be pushing for the industry to regulate itself before enough people demand the government do so.
New Jersey spends a billion dollars a year in bank fees?? The taxpayers of New Jersey ought to be thinking about how to change that!
10
Since the insurance industry is all about probability and profit why not raise premiums or deny coverage for homes and businesses where guns are allowed? If no lethal weapons are present the probability of a fatal event drops significantly ergo lower risk. Changing behaviors is much easier when out of pocket expense is involved. Threats of boycotts and the NRA we all know are more noise than substance. What is it 3 million members deciding the for the rest of America if their kids will be killed randomly? Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
10
@AusTex
Agree, agree. And hold gun owners responsible if a crime is committed with their weapon by someone else. Make owning a gun be an important responsibility with penalties. We give traffic tickets for violations but none it seems for guns other than if someone is shot and not even then if it is a stand your ground state. It is simply crazy to think of the inconsistancy in public safety laws and codes. A restaurant can get fined if the handicap grab bars are 1" too high but in Texas our Governor thinks it is a good idea for guns to be allowed in churches & schools. The Republicans are recommending to teach the children how to lay down and play dead to prevent being shot?
10
Proud of my home state and my Governor. Hope more of the East Coast follows suit. Washington is paralyzed. Individual states must act.
21
This executive order is repetitive as people who are felons, mentally ill and domestic abusers are already barred from owning firearms in any state. And yet, people are continually shot in Newark, Paterson, Trenton and Camden on a daily basis by illegal firearms. Maybe it is time to aggressively pursue criminals and not law abiding citizens. However, it is not politically favorable to do so in NJ and the aggressive pursuit of criminals does not get headlines.
9
This is a New Jersey-level redux of Operation Choke Point, a 2013 initiative of the United States Department of Justice, which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, among other businesses that the Obama Administration viewed as socially undesirable, although perfectly legal. The FDIC took Choke Point and put pressure on banks that maintained accounts for these businesses, leading many banks to close up these accounts, even though the businesses had done nothing illegal. Fortunately, a Republican-controlled House got wind of this, investigated, reported, and the FDIC shut down their support for Choke Point. A little-known but stinky chapter in our country's recent history.
5
Bravo to Governor Murphy for applying the purchasing power of the state of New Jersey to help institute some common-sense policies to reduce gun violence in America. Until we have legislative bodies that are not beholden to the gun lobby and its financial interests, our only hope is to find other useful and legal ways to take action against the costly toll of gun violence.
7
“That’s something that the governor’s office has to consider,” said Alex Roubian, the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, referring to the possibility of a boycott of New Jersey by firearms manufacturers. “Because if they’re going to put police officers’ lives in danger because of politics, that’s on the governor, not on the gun industry.”
-----
Who's putting the police in danger, Mr Second Amendment ?
The radical right that guarantees the streets are flooded with guns, bullets and AR-15s that produce an unregulated national shooting gallery......OR responsible politicians trying to put some basic rules and regulations in place to support public safety ?
America's radical Republican right and their 393 million firearms are the greatest threat to America's police forces.
D for public safety; R for guns and bullets everywhere.
29
Exactly! Also he apparently forgot their talking point that "people pull the trigger" when he decided to blame the governor for a hypothetical future act.
3
How about leaving guns allow and restricting the sales of ammunition ?
1
Ammo reloading is a common activity both for its obvious costs benefits as well as the ability to produce loads that aren’t readily available at the retail level.
4
Ammunition is also generally protected under the Second Amendment
2
Simple, thoughtful, comments sense on the part of New Jersey. But how long until the Federal government decides that the State of New Jersey does not have the right to go beyond Federal laws. They might want to talk to California about fuel efficiency standards.................
2
Excellent ideas!! Governor Pritzker are you paying attention?
1
This action in New Jersey assumes that guns and rifles used for criminal activity, including mass shootings, are obtained through some legal process or that the buyers do not get a legitimate background check. What are the statistics to show that this is so. My understanding is that most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, and as shown in the El Paso shooting, the shooter failed a background check and obtained his rifle another way.
A further thought. Why does New Jersey spend $1 billion on bank fees?
7
Every gun on the streets illegally was originally purchased legally. For example, while New Jersey may require universal background checks, Tennessee doesn’t require them for individual sales. There’s a gun pipeline into states like New Jersey and New York from states with lax laws. Trafficking guns is a lucrative business.
2
The El Paso shooter bought his gun without a background check from an individual seller, which is legal in Texas. So did the Odessa shooter.
Neither of these killers would have had their weapons if Texas required universal background checks.
This action in New Jersey assumes that guns and rifles used for criminal activity, including mass shootings, are obtained through some legal process or that the buyers do not get a legitimate background check. What are the statistics to show that this is so. My understanding is that most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, and as shown in the El Paso shooting, the shooter failed a background check and obtained his rifle another way.
1
One of us might be mixing up your mass shootings - easy to do, there are so many - but I'm pretty sure it was the Odessa shooter who failed a background check and then exploited the gun show loophole.
Interesting tack. I like it! Private business is always free to choose. The Second gives no basis for compulsion to provide loans or any other services related to firearms.
This is a great start and a really smart way to apply pressure in the only area that seems to have the potential to powerfully “motivate” these industries: the bottom line. Liberal states should also establish “DMV”-type agencies to license gun owners, ensure standardized required education (“gun-ed”), test competency and prohibit the owning of guns without proof of liability insurance. It’s clear that the states are going to have to take matters into their own hands, and with one or two successful pilot programs like we have for automobiles, perhaps the nation could see the pathway to this sort of common-sense regulation.
6
@LQMagic
A DMV for guns? That's funny. Not with the supreme court.
2
This issue with a “terrorist watch list” keeps coming up. The government putting you on a list without due legal process and then denying you rights and privileges based on that list violates the constitution and basic human rights. Why is this so hard to understand?
6
It is acceptable to a portion of the population because it applies to those whom they deem the “right” reason and affects only the “right” people.
1
Surely the NRA will sue over this policy, just as they sued San Francisco for labeling them a terrorist organization. However, what a great way to bleed millions from the NRA....by making them spend it on lawyers. The NRA suggests hat they are cash strapped now, wait until other states adopt N. J.'s strategy.
7
@John McDermott
And win the NRA wins and gets attorney fees? They will laugh last.
2
Putting any legal advocacy group on a “terrorist” list is just partisan lunacy. Just imagine scratching out “NRA” and write I “Planned Parenthood.” Does it still make sense?
1
It never fails - hit em in the pocketbook to get results....
3
Baby steps. The NRA stranglehold on our federal government is shameful. The entire world feels the same way, as well: Look at the ugly Americans. The name fits, truly. The NRA is a shameful organization. I do't mean most of it's members. I am talking about the few and they know who they are.
How about smart guns? My phone requires a 4 digit code. Please smarten the weapons.
7
@Idiolect
For police officers as well. No trigger happy accidents. England requires a sign out and sign in for guns, with noted reason to have.
Has your phone ever frozen or failed to load an app or lost the signal? Would you bet your life on a product that has those traits?
4
@Idiolect
Not a good idea for police. If the gun control access mechanism malfunctions, it could mean death for the police officer. Maybe for the general public, where the gun is rarely used in combat situations.
Good on NJ for gunsense action!
5
Hallelujah!
3
Well the assertion has been for a long time that gun safety and regulations are a state not a federal function, so this fits right in.
The only trouble is the means assumes that public law enforcement will always find vendors to provide what they need. When some device, Becomes essential but only one of the banned vendors may provide it, the bans will be relaxed.
Thank you, Governor Murphy!
As a mother of school-age children who I'm sure will be going through back-to-school Active Shooter Drills this week, I applaud this news.
30
Look into it closely and it becomes apparent that this is feel good theatre.
1
Boycotts have been pretty effective in the past. Why do you think this won’t work?
The states and the federal government can write and install all the bills and laws they want, unfortunately the only people these laws will affect are those that obey the law. The criminals and the mentally defective will not adhere to the laws and will continue to go around the law to purchase firearms. The cost to these illegal buyers will go up as the risk to the straw buyers increases. What needs to be done is to create a chain of custody for each firearm from manufacturer to buyer. When people buy a car there is documentation and DMV records, the chain of custody is known from the day of assembly until the day the car ends up at the recycling plant. There is no reason the same cannot be done for firearms.
8
Excellent idea. Also, as I've said here before, increase time served for felonies committed with a firearm and really increase the time for repeaters.
AND any instance where a firearm used in the commission of a felony was transported across state lines should be treated as a federal crime--including direct sales.
3
Have you never heard of auto theft, washed titles, chop shop parts? Wonder why your auto insurance is so high? A substantial percentage of the autos and drivers around you are uninsured or unlicensed or driving on a suspended license or using stolen plates or operating a car that can’t pass inspection. A system of checks is important but not foolproof.
1
Not foolproof, but without vehicle registration and driver licensing requirements—and without universal background checks—you have no tools to regulate who gets to drive or own a gun.
You have to admit that vehicle registration has been pretty effective in reducing unlicensed cars. You just need to be spotted by one highway patrol officer.
2
Thank you Governor Murphy! I will now write to my Mayor to ask her to do the same for our municipal police force.
12
Of course, the progressives cheering this action by New Jersey would howl with protest if, say, a Southern state pressured banks not to do business with abortion providers. New Jersey should follow the Constitution and federal law, not make up its own rules.
8
@R.P. Banks already can't do business with abortion providers because they get too many death threats. Realistically if a southern state did this nobody would be phased at all, precisely because they've been using extra-legal means to suppress dissent for decades now.
2
Bold and innovative action by New Jersey, compared to the perpetual inaction of the federal government and congress to take any action in the face of an obvious public safety crisis.
I can't help but wonder if banks are trying to be good corporate citizens in light of their failure to do so causing the great recession.
Bravo!
19
@jeff Agree with you but your last comment: No, the banks don't care. Ever.
This march towards the erosion of civil liberties (not just the Second Amendment) may have far-reaching and unanticipated sequelae. this is a very dangerous road that we are setting upon. Additionally, this executive order will do nothing to curb the daily street violence that occurs in NJ’s own capital city, Newark, Paterson and Camden, and it is repetitive as dealers are already prohibited to sell to those groups at a federal level.
10
@Michael Right. It's a slippery slope: if we impose any kind of sensible regulation on guns, there is a clear and present danger that our great country will quickly turn into a dystopian hellscape like, um, Canada.
Or Australia.
Or any of a dozen other developed countries whose life expectancy is higher than ours in part because their citizens don't have to endure gun massacres on a bi-weekly basis.
116
@Michael
Then please propose your solution, as there is clearly a problem.
2
@Michael So far as I can tell, these measures will not prevent law-abiding and mentally-sound people from joining a "well-regulated militia" (a.k.a. the National Guard) in order to "secure the safety" of their "free State" (in this case Tennessee). Throughout the constitution, a "State" is one of the constituents of the "Union" (which is what the federal government is always termed).
"Bear arms" is a term of soldiery, it didn't (and doesn't) mean "walk around carrying a firearm". And not even by implication refer to "self-defense".
Justice Scalia achieved his imaginative rewrite of the 2nd amendment in part by simply crossing out half of it, or "jurisprudence by Sharpie".
9
"five percent of dealers across the country were responsible for providing 90 percent of the guns used in crimes"
That is the heart of the issue, and what the NRA, which is really a manufacturers trade group, is desperate to make sure does not get fixed. All the lines about "enforce the laws we have" are proclaimed specifically because the NRA knows those are ineffective (because they basically wrote them).
Simply stopping those dealers would prevent a huge amount of gun crime, even without additional regulations on individual gun owners.
83
@Jack . . . and ceaselessly struggle to weaken and repeal them.
@Jack
Who are these dealers? Publicize their names. Maybe then at least those who self-righteously call themselves ‘good guys with guns’ will avoid them and, one can hope, put them out of business.
9
It's a bold step and makes me forget (temporarily) the high taxes here. Today the Trump administration revealed it's "considering" using smart phones and smart watches to signal when a mentally ill person is becoming violent and a danger. It's not funny but I couldn't stop laughing.
15
If that is considered by most people to be a "bold step", then we truly are in trouble. The NRA and their minions in Congress are murdering thousands of people each year.
1
@blgreenie
I guess those smartphones would stop signaling only after Trump's presidency is over.
Re: the taxes--might it be that in some sense you get what you pay for? Just sayin'
If the state of New Jersey (i.e., its tax payers) pays more than $1 billion in bank fees annually, imagine what banks in other states are making. Why on earth don't the citizens of each state support legislation that creates state banks to conduct state business?
28
@Kate
How many states have governments that their residents would trust running a bank?
7
@Alan - how many private banks are trustworthy ? Is the 2008 meltdown forgotten already ? In the UK the PPI scandal is costing banks such as Lloyds and Barclays a fortune compensation.
4
Yes! I hope more states will follow this example. This is an effective approach for committed executives to initiate and enforce gun safety regulations when legislatures fail to act.
17
Thank you, Governor Murphy! I hope other states will follow your lead.
23
Why aren't names and locations of the gun manufacturers being publicized so in-person protests can be staged. There's a lot of employee-shaming that needs to occur.
37
@Mexico Mike The Democrats party line has become bullying is the solution to all problems.
4
@Jim
I'm not a Democrat. How would you suggest we get rid of the guns, my good neighbor?
9
@Mexico Mike
They are not secret. You can look them up, if you want.
My guess is that they won’t care.
1
“Because if they’re going to put police officers’ lives in danger because of politics, that’s on the governor, not on the gun industry.”
No, police officers are dying because the gun manufacturers are flooding this country with assault rifles and high capacity magazines.
177
@Roger
That’s exactly what I was going to say. The ability of these people to spew lies with a straight face is remarkable.
15
@Roger
The manufacturers are offering those things.
It's our countrymen who purchase and wield them who are flooding the land with weapons.
1
@Roger
Maybe if the same accountability were extended to gun manufacturers as we are now seeing with the vaping industry there might be change.
Guns sure do kill more people than vaping...
3
The banks and credit card companies could do a much better job of preventing mass shootings if they could look at what and how often their customers are buying weapons and ammo, body armor, accessories, etc. A sudden change in the frequency of purchases and/or what is being purchased could be a reliable marker to weed out those who would wish to go down to WalMart and start using the weapons and ammo they got in the last few weeks.
On a related matter, they could decide to stop lending money on all purchases and stop profiting from suicide (I believe that is the largest category of gun deaths) and mass shootings. After all, there is no constitutional right to have a line of credit.
19
@RobtPost
Right. You think the credit card companies would be willing to staff up and monitor every purchase among the millions and millions of card holders? A cranial chip implant in gun owners would make more sense.
Credit card companies already do this for fraud and other issues. It’s not a huge leap that they address this if their funds are being used for mass murder. It would be the socially responsible thing to do.
18
@Mexico Mike Have you ever heard of computers? They are devices, designed to crunch mountains of data. A credit card transaction is already a mountain of data. One could write a program to do the watching. There's no need to hire armies of new employees. Next question?
9
This is excellent news. I’ll take it a step further : IF I am in ANY retail store and see another customer flaunting his GUN, I will immediately find the on-duty Manager and register my discomfort. If the GUN displayed is not asked to leave, I will tell the Manager they will no longer get my business, and Money. I will also call their Corporate offices, to complain.
It’s not rocket science, folks. The only thing many people respond to is Money, especially losing it.
133
@Phyliss Dalmatian, I applaud your idea, but please keep in mind that a store Manager may be uncomfortable approaching an armed shopper and requesting they leave. Some of these folks can be confrontational and it could be difficult for them to do so even if they want to.
7
@Susan M.
Store managers in KS who are "uncomfortable" dealing with armed shoppers should find other work. If enough of them do, the state might be forced to enact sane carry laws (there are virtually none right now). In any case, if the shopper is menacing, they should call The Law.
17
@Phyliss Dalmatian
“ Gun DISPLAYER “. But no difference, really.
Sad.
1
Excellent concept, Gov. Murphy. The same framework could be adopted by city and county governments, as well as security companies and other organizations that purchase guns.
32
So proud to have a governor that takes this issue seriously and is willing to take action. With the gridlock in Washington it’s up to the states. I applaud you Governor Murphy!
137
I hope the governors of NY, CT and CA will move quickly to adopt such policies promptly. If NJ plus three major markets such as these present a united front, we might see some sensible restrictions on guns.
82
@MPHNYC Consumer sales are where it is at and losing government sales might hurt in the short term, but it will be compensated for and to will be business as usual.
3
Great leadership New Jersey!
First Jersey, then California, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois... this could make a huge difference.
96
Yes! Chicago and Illinois have democratic majorities at all levels now, so I'm very hopeful.
1
@Marshall And Colorado too, I pray.
"Mr. Murphy’s plan would also seek to prevent the sale of firearms to “prohibited individuals,” which as defined by New Jersey is a broad list.
Aside from people with a history of mental illness and those convicted of crimes related to domestic abuse, it would also include people convicted of any violent crimes and drug dealing, as well as buyers on a terrorist watch list kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
Federal law already requires licensed dealers to perform background checks for felony convictions. misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, or involuntary commitment for mental health. So that's no change.
Using a terrorist watch list as a decision point as to who may purchase a gun is a big change. It's a serious step away from due process.
5
@Lilo Thank you. I was confused as well by this: "Federal law already requires licensed dealers to perform background checks for felony convictions. misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, or involuntary commitment for mental health."
Also, gun makers don't run background checks, so how can they adopt background check policies? And gun retailers are federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) so they are required by law to run background checks.
If this is a largely symbolic move that Murphy is hoping will change the culture around guns, great. But confusion about what the law can and cannot do is not helpful.
5
Just like the President said, due process second.
@Lilo The terrorism watch list contains the names of a lot of innocent people, a great many of whom are not white. I' not sure that's a good choice. I'm all for gun control, but the watch list isn't the way I think it should go.
Lots of guns out there. More guns than people. Lots of angry, antisocial, and lacking in empathy people. Our society is designed to isolate. A built environment designed for machines, not people. Suburbs, three car garages, unwalkable neighborhoods, mind numbing traffic. Every year we spend $1.2 trillion on our military-industrial complex, all the while other needs are starved for resources.
Opioids, depression, debt, climate, guns. All the while we’re drowning in military spending.
Pitiful, really.
54
@Gimme Shelter We used to live communally, in our hunter-gatherer days. It used to take a village. Guns are a symbol: "We don't trust our neighbors." Sad
4
I have wondered why gun manufacturers cannot be sued.
Congress has passed laws that shield gun manufacturers. Rescinding that law would allow market forces to address cost and availability. One might ask how this is any different than suing the opioid manufacturers?
159
@Tim But for the particular law shielding gun makers, they would be sued left and right as is happening to our nation's drug dealing pharmaceutical companies.
43
@Tim
"Wysiwyg" is a great phrase. What you see is what you get. A gun, verywysiwyg. You threaten someone with it, you know you are risking a death. You use it as directed for target shooting or similar, and do so with the obvious caution it requires, no one will die.
Medications a doctor gives you... not wysiwyg. Easy to assume it will not lead to death and that it is designed to preserve your well being if used as directed. Lots of trust required, and that trust has been frequently violated.
Civil suits are not a substitute for laws that reflect the will of the people.
Gun manufacturers cannot be sued for a simple reason, and that is you can't hold a company responsible for what it's clients do with their products in any industry.
If you (hypothetically) buy a car from a Ford Dealership, get drunk and kill people drunk driving, the victims can't sue Ford, or the Ford Dealership for selling to you. It would grind the economy to a halt.
What if you didn't buy it from a Ford Dealership, and you bought it second or third-hand?
What about suing computer manufacturers for damages done by hackers?
What about suing airplane manufacturers for 9/11?
What about suing kitchen silverware manufacturers and retailers for selling to domestic abusers after they've stabbed their partners to death with knives bought at Target?
This kind of reasoning has been fought at the state and Supreme Court multiple times. See:
Robertson v. Grogan Investment Company (710 SW.2d 678(1986).
Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc. (497 A.2d 1143(1985).
Delahanty v. Hinckley (DC, No 88-488(1989).
I hope you find these sources useful. The struggle between effective individual self-defense and collective public safety is not an easy contention to balance. I am however, dispirited by the trend of shifting blame as much as possible from the person who actually commits crimes.
4
This is an interesting (and new in this context, but not radical) approach to influencing private sector policies (in this case, those of gun manufacturers). In many ways it sounds similar to existing policies in several states that require the state (and vendors to the state) to adopt policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation or gender identity.
2
I’m still waiting for NJ to pave the Garden State Parkway. Maybe cut people a break on property taxes? No, all they ever do in Trenton is take up these “feel-good” causes that contribute nothing to our quality of life, which decreases every day.
8
It “feels-good” to not be shot.
9
@Larry move to NJ, pay taxes there that will help improve the roads you’re complaining about.
2
Larry, that’s genius. You want the state to take in less money in taxes and spend more money in road repair.
The problem isn’t the politicians. It’s the voters, Larry. Are you going to vote for the liar who tells you he’ll spend more on roads while cutting taxes? Cause those are the politicians who pass tax cuts that cost you money and then they cut infrastructure spending and close bridges during rush hour to spite their enemies.
1
Thank you Gov. Murphy. Other states need to follow suit.
164
Our politicians have failed us so profoundly that the entities doing more to protect us from mass shootings are the banks.
65