City may weaken gun rules before final vote
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City officials are seeking to modify two gun ordinances before they come before the City Council tonight for final adoption.

The two ordinances would outlaw cheap, short-barreled guns commonly known as "Saturday night specials" or "junk guns," and make it illegal for an individual to purchase more than one firearm in any six-month time period.

A third gun ordinance, requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours, also is on tonight's agenda but apparently will be voted on as proposed.

City officials are looking to adjust the ordinances out of concern they could cause undue harm to the business of Frank Caso, owner of Caso's Gun-O-Rama on Danforth Avenue and Hudson County's sole gun dealer.

On the first ordinance, city officials are considering cutting the six-month time frame in half, allowing a purchase once every three months. Corporation Council Bill Matsikoudis said a similar law is being pushed in New York City by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In regard to the ban against "Saturday night specials," Matsikoudis said officials are considering grandfathering in owners who already own such guns.

Caso accused city officials yesterday of coming up with cosmetic changes that won't put a dent in crime - but will hurt his business.

Because gun manufacturers have so upgraded the quality of weaponry they produce, the whole concept of "Saturday night specials" is obsolete, Caso said.

And limiting his customers to one gun every six months unfairly targets legitimate gun owners who have undergone extensive local, state and federal background checks, he added.

"New Jersey has the toughest gun laws in the nation," Caso said. "I live in Jersey City. I have a lot of love for Jersey City. Why don't they (city officials) just leave me alone."

a) I encourage you to type in "does gun control work" to the search engine of your choice, obtain results, read a bunch of them and make your own mind up. I suspect that you would find any list of scholarship from the criminology literature that I might provide as suspect, so this an unbiased way for you to self educate. One thing that is worth knowing is that many people who were publically opposed to law abiding people owning and carrying firearms haved changed their minds and no one I know of has gone the other way.

b) It is illegal to do what you described; that is buy a firearm out of state. So, as I said, this latest nonsense only screws law abiding citizens.

Quote:

To Roaring-

Anyone that thinks GWB or Clinton was going to declare themselves dictator is by definition a moonbat. It's an equal opportunity insult that transcends the political spectrum from right to left.

To Pisces-

First, you are barred from firearm ownership if you are convicted of a crime, or felony, in New Jersey. NOT a DOP offense, which in other states is called a misdemenor.

Second, if you are a LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT (green card holder) you are most certainly permitted to own firearms. If you're an illegal alien, of course, you're not supposed to be here legally to begin with, so then yes, it would be difficult for you to legally obtain a firearm, along with a laundry list of other things available to those who are not breaking the law.


There are remedies for regaining your right to own firearms (along with, for example, your right to vote). It's called getting an expungement. You go before a judge and explain why your prior behavior from, for example, 15 years ago shouldn't be held against you. If the judge agrees with you, your rights are re-instated. if not, you're stuck.

I don't think that re-instating the rights of those with violent histories, gang members or drug dealers makes a whole lot of sense.

As far as non-citizens having a right to own firearms, well, if you believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, then yeah, everyone in the world should have a right to protect themselves as they see fit. The Constitution does not guarantee freedoms- Those freedoms exist, whether despots agree to recognize them or not, for all. It is not predicated on a bunch of guys writing it down on a piece of paper. The Constitution is simply stating the obvious. If the Constitution went away tomorrow, freedom would not cease to exist....Although we may be forced to fight for it....

And that being the case, wouldn't you rather be armed?

GWB

Honestly, I think that gun control laws discriminate against minorities, and immigrants. People, especially young men, are always going to carry guns...I think the problem is that it is very difficult to legally obtain a firearm in New Jersey...and people are disqualified for life from carrying guns if they are convicted of ANY crime or "disorderly persons offense". So if someone once was convicted of ANY crime then they are banned FOR LIFE from carrying firearms, and I think that is stupid, and targeted at minorties. Also, many shopowners who are immigrants need to carry guns to protect themselves, but can't because are not citizens yet.

Quote:

Moonbats??? You lose all credibility in an otherwise good post when you resort to name-calling.

This is a tired topic. Gun "control" doesn't work. People in most areas won't tolerate it, and politicians, except in ultra-liberal enclaves, won't touch it.

There is a plethora of statistics that show a correlation between allowing law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves and a drop in crime.

As far as the wild claims of suicide and whatnot, I am not sure why the suicide of a disturbed individual with any item should in some way preclude me from owning said item. People kill themselves with sleeping pills, too. Shall we ban them? I suppose after that they'll use their belts.

We shall soon all be walking around with our pants drooping.


The fact is this- If you are willing to farm out the protection of the most precious things you have, that being your life, your family's lives, then you and I are two very different people.

The cops are not obligated to protect you. Ask the Supreme Court. They have been clear and emphatic about that.

Why in the world would you ever expect someone to protect something for you when you're unwilling to do so yourself?

My life, and the lives of my loved ones, are much, much too precious to me to outsource their protection completely to someone else. Not going to happen. Not today, not ever.

Responsible gun ownership is another issue alltogether. Let me just say this- I keep hearing about how guns are "taken from the owner and used against them" or how small children accidentally shoot themselves. 5 gallon water buckets are responsible for more deaths of children under 5 from accidents than firearms.

Be clear that in many of these "children get killed by guns" studies that the "children" as included are up to 22 years old. I think you can figure out why they're getting killed by guns- Someone killed them in commission of another criminal act- Gangbanging, whatever.

Deterrance with a firearm, thankfully, seldom ends up with a criminal getting shot. The simple fact that one is produced or available can end a confrontation without a shot being fired. Keep that in mind when you are looking for lurid tales of Charlie Bronson wiping out rapists sneaking around the kid's bedroom.

This is, in the end, not an empirical issue but purely an emotive one. The facts are crystal clear. If you dislike firearms, that's fine. If you have no interest in learning to shoot, that's OK too. Some people hate driving stick. But at the very least, do yourself a favor and learn how to do it.

Just in case it comes up. Better to have the knowledge and not need it than to need it and not have it.

And who knows- You might drop some of the animistic repulsion you hold to an inanimate object and find yourself approaching the issue more logically.


Edit: Let's not forget why gun control laws were first enacted and where- After the Civil War, in the South, to keep guns out of the hands of....Well, you can guess, can't you? In the end, gun control has always been about who controls the use of force. If it's only the State, then you don't have much to fall back on as a citizen.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, and millions of people who know how to use them. If, for example, Bushy McHalliburton decided he wanted to subjugate America into a dictatorship, as so many moonbats believe (dont' feel bad- Conservatives felt the same way about Clinton), the one thing stopping him from being able to do so is alot of armed folks willing to go to the barricades, and go with alot more than peace signs and patcholi oil. The Founders were clear that the 2nd Amendment was 1 part self defense, 20 parts guarantee of freedom.

Thanks

GWB

Quote:

Right, so let's put more guns in the homes of Jersey City. This way, when your home is burlgarized while you're away at work during the day they can get your guns in addition to your home computer. It's a great way to up the illegal gun trade and put a few more on the street.

Quote:

a) Could you give some references to papers funded by something other than a gun manufacturer or the NRA?

b) How does New Jersey law interfere with your practical ability to own a gun? Why can't you just go to some other state and buy a gun? And, unless you're involved in some awful crime or a kid kills him/herself with the gun, would the police even give you anything more than a sternwarning if they found that you had a gun? It seems to me gun ownership ordinances are like the anti-dancing cabaret licenses rules in New York. They're there to give the police an excuse to arrest you if you're a jerk.

c) I'm actually for letting people own guns after a background check, because I think the government should try to stay out of people's faces, but New York has extremely tough gun laws, and it cut crime sharply by cracking down on "quality of life" offenses. Wouldn't the logical answer to concerns about crime be for the Jersey City police to start by cracking down on the many obvious quality of life offenses that we see, such as drug dealing?

And how would us owning a bunch of guns help with the recent wave of graffiti tagging and bike thefts, or even the Pathmark mugging?

To me, it seems as if owning a gun might be a good defense for a shopkeeper, for example, because it's easy for a shopkeeper to have the gun at his or her side and grab it if robbers come in. But I think you have to be really well trained to use a gun to stop a mugging, and I think there are tons of headlines every year that show that using a gun to protect a home leads to more accidents and suicides than successful efforts to scare off or shoot invaders. My guess is that the Jersey Journal would put a story about a homeowner shooting a burgler up front, but I can't remember seeing such a story in all the years that I've lived here.

Let me just pose a different approach. How about New Jersey does what 40 other states have done and allow law abiding citizens their right to effective self-defense. That is, the right to own and carry a firearm after passing a background check. A considerable amount of scholarship has shown that violent crime goes down when such laws are enacted. The proposed ordinances only place a burden on the law abiding - how does that solve gun crime?

Most tellingly: "The mayor said he realizes that the measures he's proposing would have a limited effect on the city's gun problem."

Regardless of whether you agree with me - the mayor himself is admitting that it will have no impact on gun crime! So why do it?

My take on it is that rather than doing something positive like empowering law abiding citizens to defend themselves the big city mayors in the Northeast (NYC, JC, Boston) are trying to lay their failure at the feet of other states.

Quote:

Healy: 3 ordinances would help the city curb gun violence

Wednesday, May 24, 2006
By EARL MORGAN
JERSEY JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City is taking aim at guns with a range of proposed ordinances announced Monday night by Mayor Jerramiah Healy.

The three ordinances would: restrict the sale or purchase or more than one handgun within a 180-day period; prohibit the sale of inexpensive short-barreled pistols known as "Saturday night specials" or "junk guns"; and require the owner of a gun that's stolen to report the theft within 48 hours.

Violations of the ordinances could result in fines of up to $500 or face a 90-day jail sentence, the maximum punishment the city can mete out under state law.

Healy unveiled his gun initiative during a press conference Monday night at City Hall attended by Bill Ryan, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, and Police Chief Robert Troy, Police Director Sam Jefferson, Hudson County Prosecutor Ed DeFazio and several City Council members.

The proposed ordinances are on the agenda for discussion at tonight's City Council meeting.

The mayor said the proposed anti-gun legislation is a component of his overall strategy of fighting crime in the city.

"We have added almost 200 cops to the Police Department, and we now have a business curfew. Our Police Department also has a gang task force to address the growing problem of street gangs," Healy said.

Healy cited a statistic that illegal handguns were involved in 987 crimes in Jersey City last year, and noted that many of the weapons were either stolen or purchased in other states.

"While we have strict gun laws in New Jersey, a person can go to Virginia or Georgia or Pennsylvania, buy enough handguns to load up the trunk of his car, then come back here and sell the guns on the streets of Paterson, Newark, Jersey City or New York," he said.

The mayor said he realizes that the measures he's proposing would have a limited effect on the city's gun problem.

"We know what is needed here is a federal solution," the mayor said, "but we know we have to do our part."