New Jersey Star Ledger Offers Strange Argument in Editorial
In responding to the SCOTUS ruling, the editorial board at the New Jersey Star Ledger fired back in an agenda-filled editorial. As it is an editorial we expect bias, but we don’t feel their argument comes close to hitting the mark. Here is an argument that seems misguided at best:
“In his four years as mayor of Newark, Cory Booker recalls only one legally obtained handgun used in a violent crime.”
Isn’t that what this is all about? The Supreme Court ruling, and everything that the NRA and other groups (including FirearmsTruth) are trying to say is that legally owned guns are not the problem! Clearly the above statement agrees with that stance! But the editors do try to clarify what they’re saying:
“Illegal guns, purchased in other states, are killing New Jerseyans, and that’s why Booker and mayors around the state have called for closing gun-show and firesale loopholes and enacting other measures, like gun bans for individuals on terror watch lists.”
This seems to make sense, at least until you think about it. Does the SCOTUS ruling really make it any easier for illegal guns to be purchased and used in New Jersey? It does not. Are gun-show loopholes really supplying guns to criminals? The fact is that they are not. And as far as gun bans for individuals on terror watch list, the problem here is that if one ends up on a list by mistake it maybe impossible to ever get a gun.
Consider if you end up on a no-fly list by mistake? That sounds like a big deal, but no-fly doesn’t actually mean “no-fly.” It means you go through extra screenings, interviews, etc. And you can be removed from said list. On the contrary, the terror watch list is another list entirely – ironically not directly connected to the no-fly list. But the editors ignore this fact, no doubt as it could be sent to cloudy their argument. And they weren’t finished. They ended with this choice statement:
“The concern now is that the National Rifle Association, energized and emboldened by the ruling, will frighten legislators from taking these common-sense steps. Gun control always has been a multifront war — in the courts, in the legislature and in the streets. That hasn’t changed.”
Does anyone really believe the NRA wants to create a situation where guns are everywhere? Does anyone want to see the “war” go to the streets? That is nonsense, and clearly what hasn’t changed is the liberal media’s lack of understanding on this issue.
Firing Back: Blind Man Fighting to Get Guns Back
The Associated Press via NJ.com is reporting that Steven Hopler is in a legal fight to get his guns back, after the items were stolen during a burglary of his home last year. The reason this is an interesting case is the Mr. Hopler is actually blind.
This brings up the obvious question, why does a blind man need a gun, or more accurately guns? But let’s take a step back and consider that Mr. Hopler paid for these items, and won permission in 1994 to buy the guns and shoot them under supervision. According to reports, he has been blind from complications from diabetes, so how much sight he actually has is also debatable.
The man has lost his vision, and had his items stolen from his home. Now authorities says he’s a danger to public safety because he didn’t do a better job of protecting the weapons? Maybe the police should have done a better job of protecting a blind man!
Finally, this is about property. The items were recovered by authorities so these should be returned to Mr. Hopler. They are his items, and stolen property is generally returned. That’s the right thing to do.
Massachusetts Mulls Limits on Gun Purchases
Already some cities such as New York and Washington have limits on the number of guns you could buy each month, and a similar measure was pushed through in New Jersey last year. Now Massachusetts is considering a similar bill, reports The Boston Globe:
“Proponents of the bill say it would make it difficult for gun traffickers to obtain weapons in bulk, then sell them illegally on the streets of Boston. Right now, people licensed to buy guns can buy an unlimited number of weapons. Gun control advocates said that allows for ’straw purchases,’ in which people who are legally able to buy guns are hired by gun traffickers to purchase weapons.”
If criminals are indeed using “straw purchases” to obtain guns, and there is actually little proof this is as common as the mainstream media likes to make it seem, what is to stop the badguys from going across the border and buying guns in another state? Are there really gun traffickers who are supplying mass weapons illegally on the streets of Boston?
If the latter is true, why doesn’t law enforcement step up efforts to make the streets safer instead of putting new legislation that affects law abiding citizens, which criminals will just find a way around anyway? We fear this is just a step to eventually ban guns completely in Boston and eventually Massachusetts, a move that hasn’t actually worked out for crime-ridden cities such as Chicago.
N.J. Gun Buyback Doesn’t Even Claim It Takes “Guns Off the Streets”
The purpose of many gun buybacks is to “get guns off the streets,” but this past weekend in Millville, N.J., a gun buyback was just about offering $50 gift cards for firearms. The biased story from The Daily Journal - like most of this type – offers a feel good feeling, while never questioning if it does any good. Nor is any counter voice offered. In this case, the usual reason – to make the streets supposedly safer – is also not suggested. Instead, this quote says it all:
“Event organizers said the guns they collect often are either inherited or unusable.”
If the guns are unusable why are taxpayer dollars going towards handing out money for useless items? On the flip side of the issue, what about valuable or collectible firearms? And finally, what is the actual purpose of the event, if not just to create a populace without firearms?
About the only silver lining in the story is that it could be said this could be a way for stolen guns to be returned to their owners, as the piece noted the following:
“Serial numbers of all the guns collected would be checked to see if any were stolen. Stolen weapons will be returned to their owners, if they can be located, and the rest will be melted down and destroyed.”
Clearly, even with a silver lining there is some gray clouds it seems. “Melted down and destroyed.”
Brady Bunch Calls Out Nebraska
The Sioux City Journal ran an AP story this past Friday that noted that Nebraska gun laws are “weak” according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The group claims that two other states have the “best” laws:
“The report rates California and New Jersey laws best.”
We ask what makes the gun laws of California and New Jersey best? Does this imply that these are the safest locations in the country?
Then riddle us Brady “Bunch,” why is it that California and New Jersey have gang and crime problems? Shouldn’t these be lands where you are safe to walk the streets of the inner cities? We challenge anyone from the Brady Center to take a 1am stroll through Newark, NJ with us. We’re up to the challenge… are you?
Typical Anti-Gun Rhetoric in Star-Ledger Story
While this recent story about efforts to overturn the state’s unconstitutional law that limits the purchase of firearm a month to individuals in New Jersey’s Star-Ledger story was fairly unbiased, the quote from the anti-firearms crowd speaks for itself:
“Typical gun-extremist nonsense,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control organization. “This is typical of the gun lobby — never satisfied, always seeking to have everybody armed. … I think the court will probably throw this frivolous suit out.”
We would to respond to Miller offering our opinion that this isn’t about trying to arm everyone, but it is about allowing law-abiding citizens, including collectors, to be able to buy what they want without government interference.
NJ Limits Number of Guns You Buy Per Month, and Now Offers Money for Buybacks
We’ve been following New Jersey’s surreal gun laws all year. It was this past spring that the state passed legislation that allowed residents in the Garden State to only purchase one handgun per month. But throughout the fall we’ve seen that many churches and police departments have also increased the buybacks.
And soon money seized from criminals might pay to increase these buybacks. According to the Courier-Post:
”Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow, recently nominated by Gov.-elect Chris Christie to be state attorney general, said she reallocated $75,000 seized from criminals to reinstate the gun buyback program.”
While we’re at least happy that taxpayer dollars aren’t paying for the buybacks, this still seems like a two-pronged approach to making New Jersey firearm free, regardless of what the Constitution says about the matter.
Gun Buyback Program Runs Out of Money
Here is some irony, in New Jersey residents are only allowed to buy one handgun a month, but yet the Emanuel Christian Church in Newark was able to run a “cash for guns” program, and essentially ran out of $50,000 reports NJ.com. First, we need to ask how can a law be trusted if there are exceptions like this made?
Why should the church leaders be allowed to buy back so many guns, especially when law-abiding citizens are not allowed to do so? And second, and more importantly, isn’t this just another feel good story that will make no real difference? Again, we feel that old people turned in guns in need of money, and likely made far less than if they were able to sell those guns to collectors, dealers or hunters. But of course law-abiding citizens could only buy one gun a month, so that made that fact a moot point. And finally, we’ll ask again (and never will stop asking), does anyone really believe that this is getting guns out of criminals’ hands and off the street?
With Off-Year Elections Tilting Right, Is Obama’s Eye Off Gun Owners?
With crushing defeats for the democratic party in the New Jersey and Virginia governors races, resistance by members of their own party towards health care and Cap-In-Trade legislation plus a deepening burden of the growing economic malaise, the Obama administration appears not to have gun owners in their sights with any new or significant anti-gun legislation. Obama has clearly demonstrated that he and his administration live and govern by poll results and recently those once positive numbers have started to tank.
In the back rooms of the White House, Obamaites sweat it out as they work to sanitize every facet of information clean of any culpability by the President as they begin to realize and believe that not all Americans are content to behave like sheep.
This administration, it’s leader and it’s entourage, were highly touted as “setting a new standard” for communication, transparency, openness and non-partisan governance. To that end they have certainly lowered the bar on almost every facet of Presidential decorum, with Obama leading perhaps the most corrupt batch of liberal politicians this nation has witnessed in power. On many accounts, Obama’s administration and his legion of advisors, appear more like a virtual amateur hour of blatant partisan extremists. Composted of liberals, socialists, anarchists, communists and “czars” Obama’s inner circle is filled with people who probably couldn’t organize a trip to the circus let alone manage the health care or be trusted to provide for the defense of 300 million people.
The administration has problems and the November 3rd election is the proof. With that in mind, the administration is going to tread carefully and and be cautious of the battles it wishes to wage. With political storm clouds swelling on the horizon in the form of a republican resurgence, it’s doubtful that the democrats as a party, the President included, would attempt any major anti-gun legislation prior to the 2010 mid-term elections.
I wonder what FT readers think? Give us your two cents.
Firing Back: Gun Laws are Strange and Ambiguous
The mainstream media has reported ever since President Obama took office that gun sales have spiked, along with the sale of ammunition. At the same time the MSM has repeated the usual line that the President isn’t pushing for any new gun laws. However, this isn’t to say that new laws haven’t been introduced in recent months. New York City continues to tighten its gun laws, while New Jersey’s governor signed into a law that allows for only one handgun a month to be purchased.
By banning, restricting or any other means of limiting firearms only hurts the legit owners, not the criminals. One example is that in New York City you couldn’t legally own a World War II Lee Enfield rifle. Why? Because it has a 10-round magazine. A double barrel shotgun is totally legal. Which do you think would be more popular with drug dealers and criminals looking to rob a store in the middle of the night?
So is there even a criminal market for Lee Enfields? These hardly seem suited to the modern criminal. And what about the handgun limits in NJ? Will criminals only buy one illegal handgun a month? Probably not. In the end, only those who play by the rules, and follow the laws to the letter will be hurt by these sort of gun laws.
