Pseudo-Laws: NJ Limits Magazine Capacity to five (5) rounds

There is no limit to Magazine Capacity to which Gun Control Advocates ("Gun Grabbers") will ultimately agree, but they believe that if they can convince law-abiding firearms owners to agree to ANY limit, they will eventually establish a criteria which undermines the Second Amendment

New Jersey has just exceeded all expectations by introducing a bill which would limit the legal capacity of a magazine in a semi-automatic weapon to five (5) rounds; it's a publicity stunt, which also serves the purpose of distracting legitimate firearms owners from more complicated 2nd Amendment issues.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

STATEMENT1314 This bill revises the definition of “large capacity ammunition  magazine” to reduce the number of rounds of ammunition a legal  magazine may hold in this State.  Under current law, it is unlawful to own or possess an  ammunition magazine that is capable of holding more than 15  rounds of ammunition.  This bill would reduce the maximum capacity of a legal  ammunition magazine in New Jersey to five rounds.

It's difficult to believe that the framers of this bill expect it to pass. 
According to them, there is a "Magic Number" of maximum rounds which you are legally allowed to load into your firearm, according to various gun-control bills which have recently been introduced.

But this is the first time that the magazine capacity of a semi-automatic pistol has been legislatively reduced to less than can be loaded into a typical revolver (aka: "Six Shooter").

Nobody knows what maximum number of rounds  legally loaded into a semi-automatic firearm would be acceptable to Gun Control Advocates (anti-gun folks), but ultimately any acceptance of a limitation will establish that a "limitation" is a reasonable measure.

And that's just ... wrong.

Firearms owners are continually criticized for their unwillingness to accept "reasonable" restrictions of any sort, but the truth is that any compromise  results in an abrogation of our rights, while the gun-grabbers are unwilling to accept a "compromise" which does not undermine our rights. 

(Is there any "compromise" which would NOT deprive us of our freedoms?)

This bill is not expected to pass; but it illustrates the extreme methods which gun-control fabulists will employ to undermine the clear intend of The Second Amendment.

Those of us who support the Second Amendment must win every challenge; those who would take away our rights only have to win one fight.

Don't give them a cheap win.  Fight for your rights.

Never Give An Inch.

Fingerprint recognition software in a pistol grip? Where's the Morality?

There is a small, but significant community which thinks that "Fingerprint Recognition" might be a justifiable safety technology to keep unknown persons from using stolen firearms from being used in mass shooting events.

It's called "Biometrics"
it's another way for gun-grabbers to justify abrogating our civil rights.

RetMSgt said...

Had fingerprint recognition for our time clock at work. I had been picking up black walnuts in the yard, which stained my fingers brown. For three weeks my fingerprint was not recognized. People knew who I was, but the machine didn't.

Yet, some people think this is a reasonable way for both firearms owners, and firearms confiscators, to find a common ground which would satisfy the concerns of both communities.

Here's what I think:

A gun is just a tool, like a screwdriver or a hammer.  If a man steals your gun, or your screwdriver, or your hammer to hurt people, he deserves whatever happens to him.

  If a man needs shooting, then shoot the sonovabitch.  A gun doesn't know what's right, and neither do politicians, scientists, or engineers.

Just you.  

The kicker?  Shoot the wrong man?   Wrong reason?  I'll hang you.

We don't need "Fingerprint Recognition".

It's called "Morality". 
Look it up. 
I'll wait.

The NRA IS Stronger Than Our Government!

I started writing a "reaction" to that titular statement (added in full below), and after an hour of trying to undermine the thesis, I realized that it was true.   The NRA is "Stronger Than Our Government"!

The key word here is "STRONGER".  The NRA is not more powerful, not more influential than our government.

Just Stronger!

Our government is filled with politicians, all seeking re-election to positions of power and influence, and often full of themselves.  They want to be king-makers ... or kings in their own local barnyard.   From the local level to the national, they pander to the voters to support their own personal careers.  They campaign for re-election by saying anything which will give them one more vote.  They'll say anything for that vote.  I don't stoop to calling them all charletons but we know there are many in elected office.

 Sure, most of them are honorable men and women, but some are selling tonic water from the back of a wagon. And you're buying their tonic water with your votes.


The National Rifle Association is a 'club' with five million members who have the odd notion that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment (and all the others) and not coincidentally enjoy the "Shooting Sports"; which include hunting, competition, and personal defense according to the Constitution.

The difference between "Our Government" and "The NRA" is the Government is a group of people fighting for dominance.    The NRA, on the other hand, is a group of people in (almost) complete agreement about their goals and their message.   Their goal, and their message, is the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you will fight to defend the Second Amendment, you must necessarily fight for ALL of the Constitution.

There is infighting among congress and almost any other organized group; but the infighting within the NRA is almost always "technical".   Lately, the controversy in this group is about "Bump Stocks"; which will be rancorous, but will not undermine their homogeneity of purpose: to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

So when an obscure editorial comment (see below) complains about the NRA, our thought is that he should be complaining about the Government ... which cannot make a decision.

We've already made our decision, to defend our Constitution and (not incidentally) our Second Amendment Rights. 

 Leadership?

We don't expect "Leadership" from politicians.   Their goal is to be re-elected, not to defend the Constitution.   It's an effort for them to even find a way to pretend to care about the Constitution.

Europe?

We don't expect "Leadership" from Europe.  They don't a Constitution!   There are no moral guidelines in Europe.   They are a disparate bunch of tiny groups which cannot agree on anything, and their constant bickering relegates them to nothing more than background noise, like static from an FM radio tuned into a frequency which you can't clearly receive from Outback, Alaska.


 A letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper insists that "The NRA is Stronger Than Our Government":

I think America is confused. We have no real leadership. Maybe we need to look to Europe for models of leadership on gun control and other issues.
When will Congress finally do something about the NRA, which has become stronger than our government, and enact and enforce stronger gun control laws? Every time there is a mass shooting we learn that someone fell down on the job, ignored significant warnings about the shooter, let important findings fall thru the cracks.
Why are lawmakers so afraid of the NRA? Get rid of every ineffective representative in Congress. I'm mad and I'm frustrated and I have to stop reading and watching the news. Let me know when we have a real president and lawmakers who really do love America more than their jobs.

 Wikipedia Entry:

Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

(Wikipedia)

NB:  The author of this letter to the editor is someone who wants his government to treat him as a child to be coddled and protected.  He is not someone who wants his government to protect his Constitutional Rights.  He could stop reading and watching the news, and learn to love America for what it is.  He chooses instead to take counsel of his fears.   This is no country for old men.  He could move to Europe, where they would be happy to give him no 'rights' but not ask what he can do for his country.