Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ’s Gun Control Laws

Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ's Gun Control Laws
Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ's Gun Control Laws

New Jersey Second Amendment SocietyNew Jersey-(Ammoland.com)- Now this is a bill we can support – The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), would ban most of NJ's gun control laws.

Drafted for people living in states like New Jersey, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from being able to ban any weapons that are legal under Federal Law. “This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,” said Collins.

“I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”

Though widely available and commonly owned throughout the country, northeastern states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have banned the mere possession of many popular long guns. Though, it's not clear what effect, if any, these state laws have had on violent crimes.

According to Collins, the bill would ban state or local governments from regulating, prohibiting, or requiring registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, “rifle or shotgun” includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

With a law like that, NJ's “assault weapon” and magazine bans would be toast. Furthermore, the entire permit system would likely be gone as well since it's more restrictive than Federal law. This bill, plus Trump's court appointments to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which takes appeals from NJ, should bring hope and optimism for gun owners in NJ seeking relief from the laws that have been imposed on us for decades.

If you'd like to be a part of stopping the madness of NJ's gun control laws, join NJ2AS or become a Frontline donor. Remember, everyone who joins NJ2AS or donates $10 or more this month will automatically be entered into our August Giveaway. There's no cavalry on the horizon, it's just us, so join today and help make a difference in this state.

About the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:

New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: www.nj2as.com

Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Cowden
Larry Cowden
3 years ago

Trapped in the New Dork state where Tyrannosaurus Cuntmo reigns, I would be very glad to see this bill passed into law! The rate at which the dumbassocrats and tyrannical liberals shits are pursuing the takeover by violence demands such actions now. It is estimated there are now approximately 2 million instant felons in the state. These are the law abiding citizens that CUNTMO deliberately turned into felons with his ban on the AR-15 and similar rifles. No discussion, instant dictatorship over the spineless assy. of DINOS and RINOS in Albany! He opened a short registration period, then closed it.… Read more »

Defenseless in Ohio
Defenseless in Ohio
3 years ago

When will they pass a law that guarantees non-violent felons have their constitutional rights restored? There isn’t the slightest reason why this exists after probation ends. They have just as much need to protect themselves as anyone else.

tomcat
tomcat
3 years ago

@ WB, when I read Jonah Hirsh’s response I thought, wait a minute, our Constitution and Bill of Rights have priority over any state laws and I am glad to see that you brought this to the surface. Someone even mentioned that some anti gun congress or president could nulify the law at a later time. The fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights solidify this law and even though the wolf huffs and puffs there is no changing the Constitution without a convention.

John Wrobleski
John Wrobleski
3 years ago
Reply to  tomcat

Precisely!

james
james
3 years ago

Watch Cory Booker will be the Obama 2.0 nominee of the democrats, with maxine waters as his VP nominee.

TRUMP 2020 will clean their clocks.

Jonah Hirsh
Jonah Hirsh
3 years ago

It’s the right thing to do, but the wrong way to do it. Such a law would facially violate the 10th Amendment. Not so, concealed carry reciprocity pursuant to Article IV Section 1. That is a black-letter delegation of power to the Congress to mandate Full Faith and Credit for carry permits. This law would exert power for which there is no constitutional delegation; as a matter of fact, the 10th Amendment forecloses such action. In this day and age (200 years after Marbury v. Madison), the only way to destroy NY’s and NJ’s draconian laws is by judicial precedent.… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Hirsh

Not true at all. For one thing, that Second Article simply and unambiguosly declares that the right to arms is a right OF THE PEOPLE, which means ALL the PEOPLE lawfully present within this country. It then continues to state, in no uncertain terms, that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED… meaning NO ONE, no government entity, no individual, no state, county, city, neighbourhood, shall infringe upon this right. Note well, in that FIRST Article, the clear restriction is put upon FedGov.. it says CONGRESS shall make no law….. in this next one, number Two, the word CONGRESS is distinctly… Read more »

tomcat
tomcat
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

Tionico, very good explanation and I sure do agree. As I said on my first post on this subject I think this is a good bill and we need more people in congress like Chris Collins. On the other hand, it should not be necessary to introduce and pass a bill such as this because the writing has already been done by the founding fathers. Vote all of those out that think they are above the law of the land, or another solution would be to pass a bill that would, immediately, eject them from office if they tread on… Read more »

John Wrobleski
John Wrobleski
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Hirsh

Wrong! The Second Amendment IS federal law wherein the Tenth Amendment does not apply.

John Decker
John Decker
3 years ago

Here’s some “wishful thinking”. After what went on in Charlottesville Va. this past week, here’s the plan. Commission some statues of Confederate heroes to be made. When they’re done, pick a quiet Sunday night to install them in prominent places in say, Trenton, Newark, and Elizabeth. Come Monday morning when they are discovered, the leftist college students, Anti-Fa, and BLM will lose their collective minds over the white supremacist racist Nazi plot, and riot and burn things like the small minded bigots they are. The State Police will be overwhelmed trying to keep the peace, the National Guard will be… Read more »

Bob
Bob
3 years ago

Let’s face facts New Jersey gun laws are set by the liberal Democrates who do nothing to stop illegal gun ownership. What has the so called gun laws done for cities like Camden, Trenton or Newark. The rising star Cory Booker was mayor of Newark and did nothing to stop illegal gun ownership. We will never See right to carry law passed. The worst part is the so called firearms purchasing card. It’s nothing but a cash cow for the state. When You purchase any firearm you pay for an FBI background check which could cost as much as $50… Read more »

Paul
Paul
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob

You pay for a NJSP background check when you apply for the Firearm purchase card and pay for fingerprinting and wait for the police chief to interview you and give you the card. Once you have that card, if you then want a pistol, you pay for a purchase permit, another NJSP Background check and more fingerprinting. All this takes months depending on your township. Then you go to get your pistol, you think, but then you find you have to get the NICS background check which is not Instant and pay a fee. You come back 7 to 10… Read more »

Gregory S. Armand
Gregory S. Armand
3 years ago

I think this is a double edged sword here – yes, it will disable asinine strict states from passing laws banning “legal” weapons BUT it also puts the control of firearms on totally on the Federal government; when the Federal government gets a wild hair up their butts and decide to ban something and they happen to have a quorum in the legislature and a President then we all will lose the 2nd Amendment by fiat instead of the legal reading of the 2nd Amendment. A requirement for every state to recognize carry laws – yes, I see no downside… Read more »

Jonah Hirsh
Jonah Hirsh
3 years ago

Correct, if the law passed judicial scrutiny, to which it would certainly be subjected pursuant to suits from both states.

However: It will not pass judicial scrutiny. It facially violates the 10th Amendment.

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Hirsh

Nope. Simply because the ability to meddle with firearms ownership is prohibited the States. Thus it cannot be under the purview of the states.

Second Article of Ammendment says to ALL: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

that includes the prohibition against any state infringing upon our right to arms.

Remember… powers NOT delegated FedGov, or NOT prohibited the states, accrue to the states, or to the people.

FedGov HAVE the command the states to not infringe, and the states are denied the power to infringe. Thus states may not.

This proposed bill does NOT infringe, therefor is legal.

vab
vab
3 years ago

Interesting how the murder rates went up in the 1970’s, after the mildly to moderately mentally ill were no longer institutionalized, and then how it went back down in the 1990’s after states got tough on crime and were keeping the criminals–mostly mentally ill people–locked up for longer periods. So, we can have jillions of laws about the mentally ill not having weapons, but somehow they get them anyway. So, should it be illegal for a mentally ill person to possess a weapon? Probably, but who determines if that person is too ill to be trusted with a weapon? I… Read more »

vab
vab
3 years ago
Reply to  vab

I guess my comment seems a bit disconnected from the article, but my point is that all gun laws are unconstitutional. But what do you do about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and the violent? So it seems that maybe a few laws are truly necessary, but would not be used too often if we kept these people locked up.

vab
vab
3 years ago
Reply to  vab

That is exactly what I mean by the slippery slope. A court of law should have to declare a person to be a “danger to others” before that person can be stripped of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Jason
Jason
3 years ago
Reply to  vab

Having a mental disease is not a disqualifying factor for owning a gun. There is something called due process.

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago

Why in the heck is there not a a bill going through Congress like this for the state of California and in fact for every state in the union? Why does this bill apply exclusively to New Jersey? I would think a bill such as this would need to be applied to every state in the union equally and unilaterally. I mean, it is not each state in the United States and status under federal law? Do not the residents of each state in the United States deserve equal treatment under federal law? I really fail to understand why this… Read more »

Brandon
Brandon
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

You need to read the article (again if you did already) it’s very clear

Jay Paul
Jay Paul
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

A Federal bill would mean it affects all states, therefore, CA would also have it’s anti 2A laws abolished.

tomcat
tomcat
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

Chuck, I think you are misreading the article. Chris Collins is a U.S.congressional representative from N.Y. The article seems to imply this only affects N.J. but I don’t think that is correct. I think it impacts all of the U.S. Hats off to Collins for respecting and fighting for our rights. What we need is about a hundred more of his kind in the house then clone him to be in the senate in many seats.
Let’s see if do nothing congress can pass something this important.

Doug
Doug
3 years ago

Why do you want to invite the federal government into fixing state issues? Did you read what’s proposed? The bill only affects rifles and shotguns, ignoring everything else, and you want to cheer about it? The fed has NO authority to regulate arms, either for or against. If you want to fix New Jersey’s gun laws, then fix Trenton.

JS
JS
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug

How well has that worked?

Robert Benzio
Robert Benzio
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Yes, States rights but Fed already have gun regulations so it would make the states think twice about trying to take away our rights. I know it is a double edged sword. If you look at it this way the anti gun people will move from one state to the next till laws like this are spread across America then what? The courts are to slow and do not always rule the way we would like.

Jonah Hirsh
Jonah Hirsh
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Benzio

The feds have laws pursuant to commerce clause powers, but that doesn’t affect 10th Amendment protections for states’ police powers.

After incorporation, the Second Amendment faces more hurdles as to scope and kind.

The feds do not have the delegated authority to wipe out states’ laws on firearms regulation.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Hirsh

@JH, The Second Amendment has been recognized as a personal Civil Right and incorporated against the states. The Second Amendment clearly spells out what those Civil Rights include. Thus the police powers of the various states are estopped from so much as infringing on those Civil Rights. State laws that infringe are null and void.
As to your first statement, my reply is the supremacy clause. As to your third statement, the federal judiciary can wipe out state laws on firearms regulation. As to your second statement, why would the clearest of the people’s Civil Rights face a hurdle?

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Fedgov are not trying to regulate arms with this bill… they are trying to END regulation that is contraty to the Constitution at state levels. FOurteenth says a right legitimate in one state must be recognised by all. They pushed that to mean all states now have to “approve” of sodomite marriage”, an authoirty FedGov do NOT have. It is NOT amongst the delegated powers to FedGov. On the other hand, the Second clearly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED… and since that prohibition is not addressed to any specific entity, it applies to ALL. This bill merely prohibits each and… Read more »

Eaglesnester
Eaglesnester
3 years ago

The gun grabbing politicians in states like N.J., NY etc. Have undoubtedly never read the Bill of Rights *the first ten amendments to the constitution,, and the entire constitution*
I have advocated for years that any person running for election for any public office in the United States must pass a tough written test on the Constitution and must get a perfect score. That might remove some of the idiots we now have in the Washington Beltway. Can you say Maxine Waters?

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
3 years ago
Reply to  Eaglesnester

Well, CA, NJ, and NY don’t have any mention of the RKBA in their constitutions, so except for the right to self-defense, their constitutions can legally strip any means of self-defense from them, as long as they keep their right to self-defense as guaranteed by their constitutions. CT, on the other hand, does guarantee their RKBA, but their constitution doesn’t state that it shall not be infringed, unlike my state, Virginia whose constitution does state shall not be infringed. Unfortunately, even in VA our RKBA is infringed, but out firearms laws are much more liberal today, and more so than… Read more »

tomcat
tomcat
3 years ago

@Head, unless you can get rid of McAwful and his kind that may not last if they can find a way to circumvent your constitution and remove those rights. It wasn’t that long ago that HiLIARy’s buddy tried to mess with your gun laws. Stay vigilant and keep voting to save your state.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
3 years ago
Reply to  tomcat

Tomcat, very true, and that’s why we need pro-2A politicians. We dodged a bullet when Herring stripped our rights, by having enough pro 2A legislators in both houses to give it back to him harder than he did. That is why we now honor all states’ CC licenses/permits.

vab
vab
3 years ago

..”so except for the right to self-defense, their constitutions can legally strip any means of self-defense from them…” Um..no, they can’t. The 14th Amendment, as declared in the McDonald vs. Chicago decision, prohibits the States from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” From https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm: …Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
3 years ago
Reply to  vab

Van, good thoughts, but look at the firearms laws in those states.

Jonah Hirsh
Jonah Hirsh
3 years ago
Reply to  vab

All true, but Heller and McDonald did not address the scope of the right, nor the types of arms within Second Amendment protection.

Until that happens, it’s “no go”.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Hirsh

@JH, The scope of the Right is to vague. The types of arms have already been explicitly addressed.

Lee Cruse
Lee Cruse
3 years ago

A good law and something that we should all support. Now, we need to push our reps on silencers, reciprocity and laws like this one. These laws are important and will do more to keep republicans in office than just about anything else. All of them are within our reach and “getting close to passing them” is not good enough this time,
Health care and tax reform are very important, but they will be a fight even between our side, but the gun reform laws should not have resistance on our side and on much of the other side.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Lee Cruse

@LC Yes, it is time to push, cajole, and threaten to vote for someone else. And The Second Amendment Guarantee Act… the states need to be slapped awake.