NJ governor and Nework mayor anti-gun plan
Posted on August 21st, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, Alan Gottlieb, crime, gun theft law, guns, Jon Corzine, law-abiding firearms owner, Law-abiding gun owners, New Jersey, newark, Nework, police state, politics, privacy, property, regressive tax systems, regulation, SAF, your rightshttp://www.libertyforall.net/…
“Three young people with promising futures are slaughtered, and a fourth one brutally shot in the face by a gang of thugs that allegedly included an illegal alien, and all Gov. Corzine and Mayor Booker can do in response is come up with a multi-level scheme to punish law-abiding gun owners,” observed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “That’s not simply disappointing, it is reprehensible.
“If there was ever a more clear-cut illustration of the anti-gun mindset among liberal Democrats, I have not seen it,” he continued. “Corzine, Booker and others of their bent will blather all day and night about providing sanctuary to illegal aliens, and the need to crack down on street crime, but who do they invariably target for tough justice? Law-abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with this crime, or any other crime, and the worst part of it is, they know it.”
Among the proposals floated by Corzine and Booker are local ordinances requiring the registration of all firearms in Newark, and the establishment of so-called “gun courts.” Another proposal is to require gun owners, who are themselves victimized when a criminal steals their firearm, to report the gun theft immediately or be held responsible. Booker also wants to ban gun sales in residential areas or near schools, even though there are no licensed firearms dealers in the entire city.
“First Booker plans to spend millions on surveillance cameras so cops can watch crimes being committed, rather than prevent those crimes,” Gottlieb said, “and now he and Corzine want to punish gun owners who are unfortunate enough to become crime victims, themselves, probably as an alternative to actually catching burglars and other real criminals and putting them behind bars. This is not simply an insult to every law-abiding firearms owner in New Jersey, who must already have a license, it is also an insult to the memories of those three young murder victims.
I’ve commented on all these topics before. Cameras only move crime. If you want to stop crime you have to end the prohibition of some drugs, end the regressive tax systems, end the welfare state, end the laws which hold people down or allow them to make something of themselves. As for the gun theft law… it’s both conceptually and practically flawed and has been shown not to work. Even the enforcers (police) of similar laws in other jurisdictions have said it’s useless. The registration requirement would be a step closer to prohibition and makes it easier for government knocking on your door asking for your arms. It’s bad enough NJ requires a special permit just to be able to purchase a handgun.
19 Responses to “NJ governor and Nework mayor anti-gun plan”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
It would be most helpful to post a link to an article about the actual anti-gun proposal, rather than an article that rebukes it, considering your post already does the same thing really.
I’m not sure what “gun courts” do exactly, but I can see a bit of logic behind the gun theft law. While politicians may use comforting words like “victimized” when describing people who have had their firearms stolen, I feel like it’s more of a precaution for people who don’t take care in securing their weapons, which CAN be used against other people.
I don’t know the details of the gun theft law, or what the punishment constitutes, OR how it would help the police, but if it helps keep lethal weapons within the possession of their licensed owners, I’m not sure how I could be against it.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am
I’m not sure there is any bill yet to point to. A search for ‘gun’ doesn’t come up with any bill that looks like this. Also they talk about Newark only ordinances which probably aren’t available online even after they are implemented.
The gun theft law does nothing but punish legal gun owners. The amount of straw man gun selling that goes on in NJ can’t be high. I’d be easier and cheaper to just buy a gun illegally or in another state. In the article I linked to in this post the police and a councilwoman say the law is useless.
“If it helps keep lethal weapons within the possession of their licensed owners.” That’s one of the problems… it doesn’t nor could it. How does knowing a gun is missing help stop a crime committed with it? How is it possible to hold the owner responsible for such a thing when you aren’t going to be checking to see if your guns are secure every night. I don’t. Even if I did… what if I went on vacation or was otherwise away from my home. I’m going to get fined because someone broke into my home and stole my property? Those who do do straw man sales… they are already breaking the law. They aren’t going to report their gun is missing. And so what then does this law do but tack on an additional fine IF they get caught?
August 21st, 2007 at 11:48 am
I’d feel better if people DID check to make sure their weapons are secure, most nights, if not every night. That would seem necessary with These aren’t toys we’re dealing with. I don’t know how the provision deals with people away on vacation - I’m certainly hoping there’s some clause involved. I haven’t taken it into account before, and it seems that would make the bill impractical, unfortunately.
When I said I don’t know how it would help the police, I really meant that I don’t expect it will. I expect that a gun owner won’t keep their weapons lying around their property when there’s a nasty procedure that they would have to go through in case they lost it/had it stolen.
While I don’t think this bill would help with “straw man” sales, I do think it would help decrease the amount of firearms used in crimes that were either stolen/lost. I don’t know how high that percentage is, so the point might be moot.
It punishes legal owners that don’t keep track of their firearms. I think that’s reason enough for punishment.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Some stats for your discussion:
Also a word of caution when using the term “stolen” for firearms. It’s almost a matter of guns used in crime being stolen by definition, because it is very difficult for criminals to get guns legally. It’s a matter of how they are stolen that differs, are they stolen in another country and imported, are they stolen from private citizens, are they stolen from gun manufacturers, or are they stolen from retail stores. Theft, from many sources, feeds the gun black market.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Guns are property. A tool. What happens with my property on my property is my business. If the government is going to require someone to inform them when something happens to their property then it is actually not their property as they have placed an obligation on it. And if they do it with one object because of its possible use than so too should other tools which can be used in illegal ways. Computers, cell phones, cars, knives, particular chemicals, any which can be used to harm something or someone.
Regardless I fail to see how knowing a weapon to be stolen by not who stole it helps stop a crime. How does punishing an owner for not promptly reporting a stolen gun help anything but the government’s bank account grow? As I quoted, the law is useless.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It seems there is a lack of decent statistics as to where the guns used in crime come from. Even the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a little wishy-washy on the subject. I don’t think this legislation would really do much or be particularly enforcible. You can apparently already get up to 10 years for straw purchases. Also, the black market is driven by the fact that it is tough for felons to acquire firearms. You could just make it such that buying a gun is like purchasing a loaf of bread. It would be interesting to see what happens.
Personally I think I’d be for a complete hand gun ban. But then again, I think the UK has that and it hasn’t really curbed handgun related crime. It would be interesting to try this one too.
Unfortunately the two ideas are quite drastic and mutually exclusive.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“Personally I think I’d be for a complete hand gun ban”
i fail to see the effectiveness of this.
prohibition doesnt work because it cant work. all prohibition does manage to do, and do very well, is develop a very organized and controlled black market and increases street value of these “banned” goods.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I guess the only difference between those objects and guns is that the purpose of a gun is to kill things. I’m sure there are certain chemicals that have to be kept track of as well, and that any loss of would have to be reported.
As I mentioned, the law enforces better weapon security tracking by gun owners. I don’t know if it would work in practice, as people go on vacations and proving the date it was stolen on seems impossible.
A hypothetical situation seems like the best example (assuming date of theft can be determined and vacations,etc. are accounted for), for now at least:
Gun owner loses his gun or has it stolen. He now has to go through some annoying process of notifying the police, or probably filling out a report, or face a fine later on when it is used illegally. Gun owner {keeps better track of/has more adequate security for} his next gun. Gun becomes less likely to be used illegally to kill someone.
“If the government is going to require someone to inform them when something happens to their property then it is actually not their property as they have placed an obligation on it.”
Isn’t an obligation already placed on guns already when they require a license to be qualified for and renewed every so often?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“as people go on vacations and proving the date it was stolen on seems impossible”
a ludicrous solution to this, blanketed under the notion of “the gun-owner’s best interest” of course, would be requiring gun-owners who anticipate being away for extended periods at a time to report the time and day of departure/return as well as checking-in their firearms to officials while they are away, showing ID and providing signature/prints for retrievals.
failure to comply will result in fines, repossession of firearm, revoking of license.
such an insane situation, but im sure im not the only one who has has thrown that idea around…
August 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hm, good point on showing me how bad it could get. Though it still doesn’t convince me that dangerous items whose purpose is to kill shouldn’t have more strict regulations than items which don’t have such a purpose.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I agree that prohibition creates a black market and a boatload of problems. That being said, for the greater good, some things need to be prohibited. Quick example, child pornography. The act of creating child pornography so greatly infringes on someones rights that the product needs to be prohibited.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
im curious.
how do you truly prohibit such a deplorable act such as child pornography? do you regulate video equipment and digital camera by enforcing permits to own these devises? do you make the information these devices record somehow viewable to authorities as you upload them on your equipment?
even if you prohibit the products, do you really feel you are prohibiting the avenues one goes to attain them?
prohibition just makes things illegal and harder to get. it doesnt stop the flow of anything.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Why does where the guns come from matter? Lets go to extremes… every single gun used in a crime is stolen from a private individuals home, how would knowing where the gun was change how it will be used in the future? How would it cut gun crime? This law punishes people not for getting a gun stolen but for waiting to report it so it’s not likely it will make me any more motivated to purchase a gun safe.
Opening the market for guns would probably cause little change in crimes where guns are used. It’s not hard for them to get one now… I don’t know that a completely open market would change the true availability. Only the most lazy of criminals wouldn’t be able to get a hold of one. With guns easier to get it could mean non-criminals would have more guns and so less serious crimes may occur simply because the risk is higher. Rape may also drop. Different types of murder may rise or lower but I’m not sure it’d be a large difference.
If you ban guns only criminals, police and the military would end up having them. I think murder is the only crime that may lower but that is only with murder by gun that aren’t planned. Even then crimes of passion could just as easily end in murder with a knife or a baseball bat as with a gun. I’m not sure in those cases the tool has much to do with the outcome of the crime. If you ban manufacturing of guns you push those companies overseas and then just as we have illegal drug trade you will have a big illegal gun trade.
A gun can be used for many things. It fires a projectile. Just like a bow or a sling. The object itself is useless without an individual to load, aim and fire it. The motivation for those actions vary. Many hunt, some for protection (killing the target not necessary), some shoot targets or trick shoot, some murder and some as an intimidation device. The possible uses aren’t important. The actual individual uses are. In 2005; 10,100 people were murdered with a firearm out of 14,860. The same year 43,443 people died in a car crash. 5849 were non-motorists. There appears (numbers are hard to find) to be about the same number of guns as cars in the USA. If you are worrying about people’s safety then shouldn’t you be worried about drivers and cars and not guns and gun owners given that 4 times as many people die as a result?
The fine is not going to be a major motivator to safeguard your gun any more than you already do. Do parking tickets stop people from double parking? Are you then going to jail people to make the offense serious enough to force people to do it? I don’t think that’s going to fly.
The current obligation is unconstitutional, read the 2nd Amendment. NJ FIDs are good for life though you need to have them updated if you move. To buy handguns you need a purchasing permit for each one. I’m pretty sure they can not be denied unless you’ve otherwise would have ‘lost the right’ to have a gun in general.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I thought about this long and hard. I even slept on it. Prohibition in this case is designed to curb profiting from an act that our nation considers deplorable. Within our own borders we also strive to make it difficult to perform the act. Unfortunately child pornography will continue flowing in from outside our borders. This does not mean we should allow it to be freely distributed in the US. By prohibiting the sale or ownership of child pornography you are in essence imposing an economic sanction on the country that is exporting it. The hope is that prohibition can be enforced so well that the nation exporting it will not profit. The problem is the scarcity of the product drives the price way up and the demand is not easily going to go away. In order to remove the demand, a greater social stigma needs to be placed on using the product. That stigma would have to be HUGE as purveyors of child-porn are already looked upon as the scum of the earth.
I maintain that to preserve individual liberties prohibition is sometimes necessary.
Also if we want to talk pornography regulation, a topic I feel very strongly about and am quite knowledgeable on, we could always bump this to the article bile posted about porn.
As far as the “Unsafe at Any Speed” argument:
Why does that matter? Pointing out a safety issue is pointing out a safety issue. The size doesn’t matter.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Prohibition is the act of infringing on a persons freedom. Do you not see this? Murder is an end. The gun is a means. The creation of child pornography is an end. A camera is the means. If you will argue that a gun should be outlawed to prevent murder than it seems to me you should also outlaw the camera to prevent child pornography. Nether prohibition will stop them as there are other means and the demand will still exist. The cleverness and degree at which people will go to get around prohibitions is an example as to the power of the market.
Because I’m not the one arguing for the collective good. You are the ones sacrificing the individual for the collective. Not I. If you wish to save the most people you aught to be going after the cause of the most deaths first. Otherwise you are failing to raise utility in the most efficient manner.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“The problem is the scarcity of the product drives the price way up and the demand is not easily going to go away.”
Yes! exactly. Because you haven’t gotten rid of the means. You aren’t wiping away HOW and WHY the product is being produced, you are only erasing the end result. Out of sight isn’t always out of mind.
“In order to remove the demand, a greater social stigma needs to be placed on using the product.”
i doubt it. the “demons” of society will always be there no matter what you do, as youve answered above.
but what about those that commit these acts not for profit, but for personal gratification and not for mass distribution?
i believe that on the other side of the coin, the social stigma has also served as an excuse for these predators and their actions. teary-eyed when discovered, they agree with the labels and support the claims that they are ill. and society seems content with that. and then life goes on.
perhaps extracting humanity’s need for sexual gratification and profit is the solution. but thats a lot of work, not to mention impossible–quite honestly, i like sex and money.
speaking of sex and money, prostitution. a lot of good prohibition has done in that department.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
I don’t think you’re looking at the issue from more than one perspective.
I mean, are you really saying we have the same amount of double-parking violations with parking tickets as we would have without any repercussions whatsoever? That’s just ludicrous. I’m not talking about eliminating murder caused by firearms completely, just possibly decreasing it. That’s certainly a worthy cause.
And of course uses are important. I mean, those statistics are worthless when we account for how many people drive, versus how many people use firearms. Worthless, when we account how many people died in a car crash intentionally caused by the driver, versus how many people were intentionally murdered with a firearm. One tool’s main purpose is to kill/harm, another’s is transportation.
“The fine is not going to be a major motivator to safeguard your gun any more than you already do.” I think any non-intrusive motivator to safeguard guns is better to have than to not. I think I already described how it would work, disregarding the technicalities I mentioned, which might make the law moot to begin with.
I think prohibition would be insane though. “police and the military would end up having them” - ugh. It IS unfortunate that NJ FIDs are good for life - so a person gets to keep his/her gun despite various criminal offenses, as long as he/she pays the price (jailtime,fines) for them? That’s illogical. Is there no probation even?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
“It IS unfortunate that NJ FIDs are good for life - so a person gets to keep his/her gun despite various criminal offenses, as long as he/she pays the price (jailtime,fines) for them? That’s illogical.”
then its unfortunate that there are FIDs in the first place. if a criminals firearm is possessed even after they pay the price, they can still get a firearm in alternative ways outside this paperwork/laminated card system we have if they want to. repossessing the firearm just creates a demand in the black-market. the FID serves the same purpose as any other government issued license–its a societal placebo. a drivers license only “proves” you can legally drive a vehicle. you can still physically drive a car without owning the license.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
FID good for life as in as long as you don’t ‘break the rules.’ Being a convicted felon is one of those rules. So is being a ‘mental defective’ or supporting the violent overthrow of the US or NJ governments or ‘deny others of their rights under the Constitution of either the US or the State of New Jersey.” Funny… the government doesn’t live up to that last part.
Reducing murder is a worthy cause. Restricting people’s freedom is not. Education changes behavior and demand. Not strong arm tactics. I don’t need to see the issue from more than one POV. Prohibition reduces freedom. Fining people for nonagressive acts which harm no one infringes their freedom. The threat of violence to that person if they do not pay the fine infringes on their freedom. I don’t think that fines in general actually make a big difference on the number of offenses. Do speeding tickets stop people from speeding? Cops sitting on the side of the road do. Sure it will have some repercussions… but to think it will make a notable difference is the ludicrous part. You simply won’t get a measurable change in murders with firearms if you pass these laws. They do not affect the murderer at all. Given the situation which leads to most murders it’s not going to change anything. The gun is just the tool. You may have a reduction in crimes of passion but most murder is planned in some way. The tool makes no difference except for the efficiency. If you somehow made guns disappear they’d just use knives or bats or any number of things. Regardless… someone else’s actions do not justify the infringement on the freedoms of others. You are saying to me that it’s OK for you and the government you support to use guns to force me not to own guns or keep 24/7 surveillance of them so someone else who i’m not responsible for doesn’t use them to kill?
You are using utility as a reason to infringe on my freedoms. Those stats are far from worthless given that. You want to minimize death. More people die because of vehicular accident than murdered. About 3 times more. If I were to a follower of the utility argument I’d go after the cause of the most deaths first and foremost. If you are not going to follow with that logic then why not are you also fighting for banning other tools of murder, suicide, and accidental death? 1,914 were stabbed to death in 2005. Are you suggesting we should make everyone keep track of knives? Isn’t the possibility of decreasing murder by knife a worthy cause?
Why do you think gun prohibition is insane? All law abiding individuals wouldn’t have guns to get stolen and you need not worry about fining them or the gun being used in a murder.
If you want to lower murders… look at the situations in which they occur and why. You’ll never stop the jealous husbands or the serial killers. You can however end prohibition on all drugs and destroy the black market that leads to a lot of the crime and murder though. Prohibition and fines go against demand and behavior and will always fail. By attempting to smooth the curve you simply increase the extremes. Your handing over of liberties to the government in hopes of safety will only feed the monster and accelerate and increase the infringement by that government of your freedom.