# New Jersey residents: 50 cal. rifle ban



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

.

Article for New Jersey residents regarding a ban on fire arms .50 cal. and larger.
Worth taking a look at.:

Last week FCI staff joined forces with several other gun rights organizations on the floor of the New Jersey state legislature to prevent the passage of A-2116, a proposed 50 caliber ban. FCI Chairman John Burtt joined Scott Bach, President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and Bob Viden, NRA Board Member to provide New Jersey legislators with accurate information on the effects A-2116 would have on the community of law abiding gun owners from that state. *After two hours of testimony, the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee passed A-2116 (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2500/2116_I1.PDF) by a vote of 5-1. 

As passed, the legislation will ban virtually all firearms .50 caliber and over. *

.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Glad I don't live in New Jersey. I wonder if that ban includes muzzle loaders.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

.


> I wonder if that ban includes muzzle loaders


Muzzleloaders can be up to 60 cal



> This bill amends N.J.S.2C:39-1 to revise the definition of "destructive device" so that it includes weapons of 50 caliber or greater.
> 
> Although it centers primarily on devices or instruments designed to explode or produce uncontrolled combustion, the current statutory definition of "destructive device" also includes weapons which fire projectiles of greater than 60 caliber.
> 
> ...


http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2500/2116_I1.HTM


The wording of the bill would prohibit ALL 12 AND 20 gauge shotguns


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

New Jersey could be a nice state,if it wasn't for some of the idiots.Thing is I'm afraid our New President is going to try and turn our whole country into the same.

big rockpile


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Over the next few years watch for that 50 cal to start drifting down in hopes of no one noticing. NJ should throw out everyone that voted for the bill before Jan 1. Like Rockpile said,once Obama and all his antigun cohorts takes office,LOOKOUT Please let me rephrase,If any NJ residents that own guns,voted for any anti gun politicans to hold office, in the past election, they deserve to loose them all,and if they move to another state, that state should hold those previous NJ res to that NJ law. Eddie


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I don't own, and have never shot (outside of the military) a larger than .50 calibre or greater rifle; the aforetomentioned muzzleloader excepted of course. What would one shoot with such a beast as a .50 or greater rifle? What percentage of hunters would use such a weapon afield? What percentage of gun owners would want to own such a weapon, and why?


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

A couple of friend of mine have 69Cal Muzzle loaders.

 Al


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

realy the only people who use these rifles are colectors , and long range target shooters , and competitive long range shooters 

yes occarionaly someone will use one for hunting in the mountains 

but mostly these rifles are feared because of the few sceenes in movies where they are used so people are afraid of the thought of being able to shout consistant groups at distancaces of near of a mile and that they would go thru convertional police body armor 

what they forget is that 
1 ) these rifles cost around 2500 dollars , and need another 2500 in optics to make them usefull and rounds are about 5 dollars each and realy to get the kind of performance they are afraid of you would have to be a very precise hand loader. so you seen any crimes in the news comited with 5000 dollar rifles 

2.) it takes what you would call a well diciplined marksman to do that kind of long distance shooting they are so afraid of 

3.)if you did have a well funded criminal with the time money and dicipline to use one of these rifles , they would likely be a drug cartel and (A) would not care about some new jersy state law and (B) already have access to every weapon currently available to mexican and south american armies., somtimes they have access directly to the army viechles, solder and all 

4.) they start out at 25 pounds with out optics bipods , stablizers or ammo with a barrel length of 36 inches and more than 90% are single shot .so when was the last time you saw in the news that someone comitted a crime with a sigle shot 30 pound gun 60 inches long that cost 2500 dollars , if they had that they could just sell it they wouldn't need to robe the licoure store or even bak where th eaverage take is 300 dollars and they serve 10 or more years 

realy havent these people heard of internet crime it pays better and average 3000 and serve 3 or less years 

the wall street journal did a study some years back i think around 1999 and found that of those who owned 50 cal cartrige rifles specificaly those based on the round fired from the armed services browning machine guns where colectors and competative shooters and the majoritywhere white men over 35 had college degrees and jobs where they made in excess of 100,000 dollars a year , with the few percent not fitting that catagory still having good jobs and where considered stable citizens


----------



## Tad (Apr 2, 2003)

Haggis said:


> I don't own, and have never shot (outside of the military) a larger than .50 calibre or greater rifle; the aforetomentioned muzzleloader excepted of course. What would one shoot with such a beast as a .50 or greater rifle? What percentage of hunters would use such a weapon afield? What percentage of gun owners would want to own such a weapon, and why?


 This would include shot guns, here in western new york rifles are illegal to hunt deer with slug guns only.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What would one shoot with such a beast as a .50 or greater rifle? What percentage of hunters would use such a weapon afield? What percentage of gun owners would want to own such a weapon, and why?



Why should any of that MATTER?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why should any of that MATTER?


It shouldn't but it does to some folk, and how does one rationally defend the "need" or "right" to own such a weapon as a .50 or greater calibre rifle?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

the same way one rationally defends the right to own an 8 million dollar house or half million dollar sports car that can almost triple the highest interstate speed limit.
am i the only one who is sick of people wanting me to justify things i do that harm no one else? 
seriously i am so sick of being put upon that if i didn't have kids to raise i'd already be taking a baseball bat to some people at the brady center.


----------



## Jack T. (Feb 11, 2008)

Well, those rifles are the "weapons of choice" for gang shootings. I mean, every gang member I know of carries around a 30lb rifle that is 4' long and costs on the sunny side of $8K. Yeah, I'm sure everybody in New Jersey feels safer now.

And mark me down as somebody who doesn't *need* justification to own a sports car that will cruise at "go directly to jail" speeds or a rifle that hits like a truck at crazy distances. I want it, and until I actually *hurt* somebody there is zero reason for me not to have it.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

Tad said:


> This would include shot guns, here in western new york rifles are illegal to hunt deer with slug guns only.



I was thinking it could but thought only the truly stupid would leave out an exception for shotgun slugs because that is what most places prefer you hunt deer with if they are more than sparcly populated. as in more than aproximatly 3 houses per square mile on average 

realy don't you think they would be much smarter to define a statute based on distance of efective travel rather than singling out thing sbased on size 

realy if they would make a staute that said it is hereby illeagal to own without written concent of your county sherrif a firearm having a velocity at 1500 yards greater than 1100 feet per second or an efective range greater than 1760 yards and define efective range as the ability to penitrate greater than 9 inches in 10% balistic geliting with a displasment of greater than 3 cubic inches in more than 50% of rounds fired. at lease it would point out they are afraid of long range balistic capabilities.

but i suppose that all this will realy do is keep the state of newjersy from purchasing or getting servce any barnette gun the same as it does for califorina if you read it it is printed at the bottom of all thier ads.

maybe all firearms manufactres who recive their primary revinues from citizens and not from goverment agencys should merly put out a statment that unless the citizens of the state can own it legaly the goverment agencys of the state can not purchase thier product...
when police departments are left unable to purchse the brands they like , ruger , sig , taurus, s&w, springfield, glock , beretta, maybe centiment will change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It shouldn't but it does to some folk, and how does one rationally defend the "need" or "right" to own such a weapon as a .50 or greater calibre rifle?


How does one RATIONALLY QUESTION anyone's RIGHTS?
There's no need to "defend " anything to you or anyone else
And the law doesnt say "rifle", it says FIREARM


----------



## diamondtim (Jun 10, 2005)

From my reading of the bill, shotguns used for hunting are excepted. Current owners are grandfathered. But take a look at the list of banned guns, there are many that are used by target shooters and hunters. Scary stuff people!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> From my reading of the bill, shotguns used for hunting are excepted. Current owners are grandfathered


I didnt see any exception for shotguns, and the "grandfather" clause only applies to 
"PERSONS who ALREADY own them". I take this to mean they cannot be transferred or left to your heirs





> Finally, the bill affords an *exemption to persons who lawfully possessed a firearm of a caliber of 50 caliber or greater on or before the effective date of the bill.* This "grandfather" provision will permit *those persons to continue to possess lawfully *their large caliber firearms.


The wording is WAY too ambiguous


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need to "defend " anything to you or anyone else


Which may go far in explaining why gun ownership "privileges" continue to be "infringed" upon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Haggis said:


> Which may go far in explaining why gun ownership "privileges" continue to be "infringed" upon.


They continue to be infringed upon because of ignorance, half truths, and outright lies from those who would prefer to see EVERYONE but THEMSELVES disarmed.


They rely on the stupidity of the masses to parrot mindless phrases like "cop killer bullets" and "assault weapons", when in fact they have no real knowledge of the subject.

If 50 caliber weapons are such a "threat" then why is it most have never heard of them until the GOVT decides to MAKE an issue of them?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They continue to be infringed upon because of ignorance, half truths, and outright lies from those who would prefer to see EVERYONE but THEMSELVES disarmed.
> 
> 
> They rely on the stupidity of the masses to parrot mindless phrases like "cop killer bullets" and "assault weapons", when in fact they have no real knowledge of the subject.
> ...


All freedoms are eventually "because of ignorance, half truths, and outrights lies"; the problem is, that once anything, true or not, has been repeted a few times, folk take it as being true, whether it be on the issue of pro-gun vs. anti-gun, or any number of other issues. Which brings us full circle; how does one convince anti-gun folk that "Joe the Gun-Owner" needs or should be allowed to privately own and/or keep near their person any .50 calibre or greater firearm? 

I am a gun owner, a life-long gun owner, and a person who thinks there should be no limit on the ownerships of arms; none, but it is only rarely that I hear from the pro-gun ownership folk a valid arguement enough to convince me they should be allowed near a firearm, even one rendered useless. If they can't persuade me over to their side, what chances do they have with someone who actually _is_ anti-gun ownership?


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Over the next few years watch for that 50 cal to start drifting down in hopes of no one noticing. NJ should throw out everyone that voted for the bill before Jan 1. Like Rockpile said,once Obama and all his antigun cohorts takes office,LOOKOUT Please let me rephrase,If any NJ residents that own guns,voted for any anti gun politicans to hold office, in the past election, they deserve to loose them all,and if they move to another state, that state should hold those previous NJ res to that NJ law. Eddie



Unfortunately, New Jersey financial contributers known as taxpayers are outnumbered by the socialist Democrats whose constituency depends on government intervention into their lives economically. Many are attracted to blights like Camden, Newark, Trenton, Jersey City, etc for the lucrative never ending dole which is guaranteed as long as they vote for the dolers. We stay because we can still afford it, can fish freshwater for trout or bass, fish saltwater, and get a little hunting in in the same day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If they can't persuade me over to their side, what chances do they have with someone who actually is anti-gun ownership?


To be "persuaded" you have to be willing to LISTEN instead of just asking rhetorical questions or demanding justifications.

50 cal firearms are almost NEVER used to commit a crime. Its just one more hyped up "Demon Gun" for the antis to get the fools riled up with.

And "pro gunners" like you are just as much a part of the problem, since you dont make any effort to educate yourself or others.
You just keep demanding that people "get your approval".

The Center for the Prevention of Violence did a study and have only been able to find* 4 instances *of a 50 cal rifle EVER used to commit a crime, and one of those isnt certain.

Instead of demanding gun owners to justify their RIGHTS, why arent you demanding the GUN BANNERS to justify their INFRINGEMENT?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Center for the Prevention of Violence did a study and have only been able to find* 4 instances *of a 50 cal rifle EVER used to commit a crime, and one of those isnt certain.
> 
> Instead of demanding gun owners to justify their RIGHTS, why arent you demanding the GUN BANNERS to justify their INFRINGEMENT?


How often are jumbo jets used to commit crime? If they are used at all for such acts then their use and/or ownership must be strictly controlled.

I don't know that their are too many "gun banners" but their are many who wish to ban, at varying degrees, the private ownership of firearms.

There is much logic in what both anti-gun ownership folk and pro-gun ownership folk have to say; I choose to not take sides against the logic of either, when it is logic and not empty partisan rhetoric.


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

Let me start by saying I didn't read all of the posts here. 

The biggest hind ends here in NJ hold some kind of political office. Before this bill came up for a vote I went to see my local State Assemblyman in person. I like to look into the eyes of the person I am talking with.

He acknowledged the democrats are fully behind this bill and the Speaker is a Democrat who wouldn't let this bill come up for a vote if he didn't think it would pass.

He did say he wasn't sure how he was going to vote. I did comment that bills like this one slip in a lot of other lines they want added in to pass as a "add on" thinking the public wouldn't notice. There will be a lot of republicans lining up with the Anti-Gun and Animal Rights people because of re-elections needs. Forum Rules prevent me from saying how I really feel. But if the SHTF I would let the politicans starve.......... eat the Bills you passed you no good political .....! :flame:

Regardless, buy your guns now. This is just one snow flake in the coming Ice Age. NJ Rich NRA Life Member since 1971(?)


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

NJ Rich said:


> Let me start by saying I didn't read all of the posts here.
> 
> The biggest hind ends here in NJ hold some kind of political office. Before this bill came up for a vote I went to see my local State Assemblyman in person. *I like to look into the eyes of the person I am talking with.*
> 
> ...




You looked into the eyes of a politician and lived to tell about it? Did you have any brain damage? The only way I would look into the eyes of a politician is if I have some of those reflective glasses on.

I'm afraid you're right, this law is just the tip of the iceberg or the beginning of a long downhill slide for us gun owners. The rest of the states will pick up on this as quickly as they can. Here in Texas it may take a little longer as gun ownership here is pretty much sacrosanct.
I'm really sorry to hear that you live in N.J., you have my condolences.:cowboy:


.


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

Hey Ninny,

Yeah, I lived to tell about it and didn't get drain bramaged for, uhh, uhh wait a minute. Oh yeah what I said. 

A persons eyes give a view into their soul. Politicians usually give away something but I don't like to get that close to'em. I heard they got cooties and the stink comes off.

The best I could do to help fight this law was to sit down with my legislator and let my thoughts be heard. I could tell he wasn't kidding when he said he didn't know how he was going to vote and I used my time to pin point some of the sections I had a problem with.

I also let him know the members of the gun club I belong too have a membership opposed to this law. Our club is over 5000, yes thousand, strong.

I leave for Tennessee on Friday after Thanksgiving. My son and his family live there and he has thousands of acres of private property to hunt on. I hope I get a deer or two.

We all need to be watchful of what is happening in our legislatures and in Washington. Peace to ya, NJ Rich


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

NJ Rich said:


> Hey Ninny,
> 
> Yeah, I lived to tell about it and didn't get drain bramaged for, uhh, uhh wait a minute. Oh yeah what I said.
> 
> ...




Politicians don't have a soul. 

We definitely have to stay alert on these gun laws or we'll be wondering what happened to our rights.:cowboy:

Good luck on your hunt...
.


----------

