Gun Owners Call BS on Restrictive Measures in New Jersey and Canada

Opinion

I Will Not Comply Ban Guns
Gun Owners Call BS on Restrictive Measures in New Jersey and Canada

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Treating nice people like criminals isn’t likely to enhance respect for the law.

That’s a tough lesson anti-gun officials in New Jersey and Canada are learning now that deadlines are past or nearly arrived for certain newly-enacted gun control measures. Both localities are apparently experiencing widespread noncompliance with new requirements for firearm owners, despite provisions in the laws that threaten stiff punishment for those who don’t obey.

New Jersey gun owners faced a Dec. 10 2018 deadline for compliance with a state ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Residents in possession of formerly legal magazines had to surrender, destroy, transfer, or modify them or face felony penalties of up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Opponents of the law had challenged it in court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the petition in a Dec. 5 ruling.

This led New Jersey’s Attorney General Gurbir Grewal to exalt on Twitter that the decision was a “[b]ig win for public safety and law enforcement safety!”

It’s hard to see how that could be so, however, given (among other things) that both enforcement officials and New Jersey residents seem content to simply ignore the dispossession mandate.

The New Jersey State Police answered a news outlet’s request to elaborate on how they would enforce the new magazine ban by referring the reporter to the Attorney General’s Office. That office, however, had no comment.

When pressed on specific possible enforcement scenarios, a public information officer at the attorney general’s office stated, “We've answered your query. … We have no comment.”

Governor Phil Murphy
NJ Governor Phil Murphy

Another writer on firearm-related issues was told by sources within the New Jersey State Police that they had received no guidance from the attorney general’s office on how to enforce the ban, nor did they have any current plans to investigate suspected violations.

That same writer attempted to determine whether any magazines had been surrendered by asking the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office, the state police, and several local police departments. In each case, the entity either refused to comment or reported that no magazines had been surrendered. The writer has since filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the state police and is awaiting a response.

A journalist for Reason.com embarked on a similar exercise and was likewise unable to substantiate any magazines having been surrendered. As he pointed out, there are other possible means of complying with the law short of surrender, but there is no evidence those options are being used, either.

Thus, Garden State residents have either been discretely dealing with the matter personally or perhaps not dealing with it at all. With some one million estimated gun owners in New Jersey, it’s notable that not a single agency would confirm having received a surrendered magazine. Then again, this is perhaps not surprising, given that nobody knows how many non-compliant magazines remain in New Jersey or who might have them.

And it’s not just gun-loving Americans who are displaying skepticism toward newly-enacted gun control. Even some of our assiduously polite neighbors to the north may be thumbing their chilly noses at recent anti-gun mandates.

After the Canadian national government scrapped its failed long gun registry, the territory of Quebec enacted long gun registration requirements of its own that went into effect early in 2018. The territory’s public security minister improbably claimed at the time that the measure would “both prevent and solve crimes.”

Nearly a year later, and with penalties of up to $5,000 set to take effect later this month, the Montreal Gazette is reporting that less than 18% of the guns estimated to be covered by the law have been registered.

According to that article: “The government has put the number of long guns — mostly shotguns and rifles — in Quebec at roughly 1.6 million. But since the registry opened last January, only 284,125 guns had been declared, Public Security Department spokeswoman Louise Quintin said.”

Ironically, a supporter of the Quebec registry told the Gazette that the registry “is essential because guns cannot be controlled if the government doesn’t know how many there are and where they are.”

What the backers of the measure fail to appreciate, however, is that the registry itself is unenforceable for exactly the same reasons.

This fact, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have escaped over 80% of the territory’s already overly-burdened long gun owners.

Only time will tell if New Jersey and Quebec will try to back up the dubious and high-minded public safety rhetoric that accompanied the enactment of these gun control laws with enforcement action against otherwise law-abiding residents.

In the meantime, it may not just be an appreciation for hockey that unites New Jerseyans and Québécoises, but antipathy for overreaching and silly gun control as well.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 16 thoughts on “Gun Owners Call BS on Restrictive Measures in New Jersey and Canada

    1. This not just a state and northern country problem folks. The shift in Congress to the Democrats will bring a flurry of gun proposals, all bad for legal owners. If the RINO’s start caving to save their political careers, we will only have the President to stop them. One must realize that if enough compromise with the Dems, they will be able to override any veto’s he issues. This is a bell-weather moment for the 2nd Amendment, mark my words. We are on the precipice of total confiscation if it continues and we all know that will not go well for America.

    2. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
      Conspiracy Against Rights

      This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
      It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
      Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

      This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
      This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
      Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

      Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.

      “The court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller clearly stated that arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment and thus cannot be subject to an outright ban”. Justice Scalia

    3. Here is a letter sent to the Minister responsible for introducing further Canadian firearms laws , with published comments from the RCMP Commissioner, the former Chief of Ontario’s Provincial Police, plus others.
      This letter pretty well sums up the position of most firearms owners in Canada on this proposed legislation.
      This bill C-71 is Federal and over and above Quebec’s present fiasco which is completely illegal simply because firearms are under Federal NOT Provincial Jurisdiction. 20 days before the cut off date for compliance, I would say the figure for complience with the Quebec ‘law’ is probably, being liberal, ( hate that word ) maybe 8% not 18%.

      Dear Minister Blair:

      In medicine we have reached a point of decision making called evidenced based medicine. Could we have evidenced based gun policy ? Could the money being spent be measured against the possible benefit of spending such funds directly on programs our law enforcement officers believe in and endorse ? Could the public be told of countries like Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Austria, and Iceland when discussions of gun ownership arise ? Instead of presenting a single view and comparison to Australia and the US as though the reduction of crime is one of gun licensing and no more, a self serving fashion of presenting only the data that benefits one argument and in fact ignores the rise of other crime in the absence of gun ownership ? Should the public be told of the other programs that will suffer this budget use, measured against these funds that evidence based policy and even our own experience in Canada do not support ? It is easy to fear guns for non gun owners, long ago it was easy to fear cars for horse owners. I would expect my government to be the ones to ensure we enact laws that are based on evidence, laws that benefit society, laws that serve a true purpose and not one of politicization, and lastly, to spend our funds in a fashion that furthers our betterment as citizens of Canada.

      In your inaugural mandate letter as Minister of Border Security & Organized Crime, the Prime Minister tasked you with leading “an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians.”

      With over half a million Canadians licensed to own restricted firearms (ref. 1) and over one million such firearms owned (ref. 2) there is no possibility of such a ban not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians. In fact such a ban would be the largest impediment to the lawful use of firearms in Canadian history.

      A full ban on handguns and assault weapons would be very costly to Canadians too. Whether the government chose to ban them outright or use the grandfathering provisions in bill C-71, affected owners would suffer a significant financial loss. A class action lawsuit against the government for compensation of property value and taxes paid would easily reach $500,000,000 on the low end. That’s just $500 per firearm. Most are much more expensive than that. The final value could easily surpass one billion dollars.

      But most importantly to all Canadians, a full ban on handguns and assault weapons is an empty gesture that will not have an impact on violence in Canada and our cities in particular. With your past experience as Chief of the Toronto Police Service I’m sure you will concur with the following:

      “I’m not sure if a complete ban is the answer.”
      – RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, August 18, 2018

      “It would be unmanageable and unfair to the majority of handgun owners who obey the law and always use their guns safely. Let’s effectively deal with the criminals that do not obey the current criminal law.”
      – Chris Lewis, former OPP Chief, August 18, 2018

      “Even if we make them more illegal than they already are, criminals will still come into possession of them, and still use them for illegal purposes.”
      – Adam Palmer, CACP President, August 15, 2018

      “A gun ban is not the solution. In discussions with @JohnTory to get the resources we need now to improve public safety & reduce officer burn-out”
      – Mike McCormick, president of the Toronto Police Association

      TPS data tells us that while homicides with firearms are up 42% in Toronto 2018 over 2017, homicides with knives are up 275% and homicides by other 217% (ref. 3). Why is this government’s priority licensed gun owners? You know better than most that police work is hard. Don’t let your government get away with taking the easy road of scapegoating licensed gun owners. Make them do the hard work. Canadians deserve it.

    4. So what are these politicians in Canada and New Jersey going to do? Arrest 1000’s of white middle class gun owners? Dont they have overcrowding in prisons now? And say isn’t new Jersey the headquarters of the Mafia? A lot of good their commie gun laws do. I’ll bet that these New jersey politicians have mob figures for friends and supporters!

    5. When the Demon-Rats abolish sanctuary State, City, County laws and positions and follow federal immigration laws.
      Then maybe we will “consider/take under advisement” their gun ban suggestions (when unconstitutional, they are not laws). When politicians do not follow the laws that they took an oath to uphold. The laws they produce and put upon the people must be resisted and ignored.

      1. No WE won’t! There will be NO consideration of gun ban “suggestions” or otherwise, taken. You don’t reward illegalities with more illegal concessions. Your “suggested” reasoning is what needs to be resisted & ignored.

    6. It doesn’t matter if they enforce it or not. Being on the books allows them to pick you off one by one if your caught with a over capacity magazine or hollow point bullet. The tool is then there to prosecute the innocent and unsuspecting.

      1. Being on the books with or for what? Magazines aren’t registered or recorded so how would anyone know what you have? A NJ resident could simply drive to a gun store or gun show in PA, stock up on 30 round magazines and drive home. Same with ammo. Oh wait, that would be against NJ law……my bad……strike that, I’m sure no NJ resident would EVER consider doing that!

        1. Magazines in and of themselves, no….what about registration of firearms. A Glock 22, or 21 or 45 models, all carry high capacity magazines, (more than allowed under this law anyway), for example; a simple query of these firearms in NJ data base would reveal who owns what based upon ones own registration. Is it so far fetched that a knock on the door is forthcoming someday in the immediate or not so distant future, whereby citizens are now compelled to carry the burden of proof, (with credible and convincing evidence), as to where their magazines/weapon(s) as registered are? Since it appears no one has yet to discover how this enforcement is to take place, and since the law appears now in full force and effect, any citizen who at this late hour is compelled to provide such credible an convincing evidence, would that be tantamount to forced self incrimination under color of law, notwithstanding where the registered items may be?

    7. The NRA needs to focus on getting gun owners rights issues to the Supreme Court to get second amendment issues resolved before there are no 2nd amendment rights Get off the stick and trade background checks ( ska Manchin-Toomey) for National reciprocity

    Leave a Comment 16 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *