New Jersey Law Would Ban Many Common Hunting Rifles

The gun ban that has gone to New Jersey Governor Christie for signature has been described as a “gun magazine restriction“,  but it bans numerous common sport and hunting rifles. The ban has no exemption for rifles with fixed magazines, including most common .22 rimfire rifles that are used for sport and small game hunting…and almost never used in crimes. Assembly Bill 2006 bans rifles that meet this definition: (4) A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds . . .

The bracket and underline show the existing and proposed laws. There are no exemptions for grandfathering. Anyone who possesses such rifles after the ban goes into effect will be guilty of a felony. This has already happened at least once, when the owner of a .22 Marlin that he won at a police raffle was convicted for owning the firearm. The model owned was either the one pictured below a very similar Marlin.  It is an “assault weapon” under current New Jersey law, as it has a magazine capacity of 17:

Marlin Model 60 with 17 shot magazine:

After the ban, Marlin modified the design to reduce the magazine capacity to 15 so that the rifles could be sold throughout the nation without having to cater to specific state laws. Now New Jersey is pushing to tighten the restrictions even further, outlawing the current Marlin model 60. It has a 15 round capacity and is arguably one of the most popular .22 rifles in the world.

Marlin Model 60 with 15 shot magazine:

Nearly all .22 rifles that have fixed tubular magazines have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. The Remington 552 holds 15 rounds.

Remington  552, 15-22 shot magazine:

Browning makes a semi-Auto .22 rifle that may slip under the ban that’s on Christie’s desk. Browning says that the magazine capacity on their SA-22 is exactly 10. Because of the variation of .22 ammunition, it’s likely that the rile would hold 11 rounds of some .22 ammunition. Older versions of the rifle advertised a magazine capacity of 11 in .22 LR, and 16 in .22 Short.

Browning Semi-Auto .22 rifle:

.22 rimfire semi-auto rifles with tubular magazines are some of the most popular sporting firearms ever produced.  Over 11 million have been manufactured of the Marlin Model 60 and variants alone. Changing magazine capacity of one of these rifles isn’t simple, because the magazine is fixed, not easily removable.  The New Jersey ban would make all of them in the state instant contraband. Here is a list of common sporting rifles that would be banned by the law:

Browning  Semi-Auto .22
Colt Colteer and variants
Franchi Centennial .22
Marlin model 60 and variants
Norinco ATD .22 (Browning Clone)
Remington 6A and variants
Remington Nylon 66, clones, and variants
Remington 552
Remington 550
Remington 241
Savage model 87A and variants
Winchester model 74
Winchester 190, 290 and variants

This isn’t an exhaustive list. It is hard to think of rifles that were more obviously designed for “sporting purposes”.  To my knowledge, they are one of the few firearms that was not originally intended as a potential military design. It seems that New Jersey legislators have not heard that “No one wants to ban your hunting rifle.”

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

80 Responses to New Jersey Law Would Ban Many Common Hunting Rifles

  1. avatarSouthernPatriot says:

    If Christie signs this attempt at limiting the Second Amendment, he has no chance of receiving the Republican nomination, but I am sure the Democrats would welcome him. Sorry, that is old news.

    • avatarPublius says:

      Regardless of if he signs it or not, the Republicans will almost certainly nominate him. Just like with Romney, they foolishly think that running a Democrat under the Republican banner will win them votes from Democrats.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        You have SFB, Christie has no more chance of being nominated for President than you do. You act as if some anonymous set of creatures selects the nominee. He is selected by Republican voters in a series of primaries. Christie has zero chance of winning a primary outside of New Jersey and I’m not ever sure he could do that. You were probably one of the people who thought that the Republicans in Congress would support Obama’s gun control initiatives.

        I am tired of this Romney meme. He did not propose any gun control legislation when he was governor. The Democrats had a veto proof majority in the legislature. He did all he could do to limit the damage. Before you embarrass yourself again I suggest you read up on how government works before making pronouncements.

        • avatarPublius says:

          “You act as if some anonymous set of creatures selects the nominee.”

          And you foolishly think voters do. Remember what happened with Ron Paul? He was too popular, so they changed the rules to ensure that Romney won the primary. Even if that wasn’t the case, too many Republicans are idiots and will support Christie because “He’s electable” since he’s a Democrat running under the Republican label…even if they despise everything he stands for, they foolishly support him because they think somehow all of his policies will magically change once he’s in office.

          “You were probably one of the people who thought that the Republicans in Congress would support Obama’s gun control initiatives.”

          Not at all. However, if Romney had been elected and proposed the same gun control laws, Republicans would have peed their pants in their rush to rubber stamp them so that they could get the Republican President’s agenda passed.

          “I am tired of this Romney meme. He did not propose any gun control legislation when he was governor. The Democrats had a veto proof majority in the legislature.”

          Bull. First off, Romney openly talked about his support for strict gun control in countless interviews and even used Obama’s same line of “We don’t need weapons of war on our streets” when referring the to ban he signed. Secondly, even if they did have a veto proof majority, if he was against the bill he would have refused to sign it on principle and let the Democrats force it upon the state. He signed it because he supported it, plain and simple.

          Sadly, you appear to be one of the people who’ll vote for anyone running under the Republican banner, no matter their record. It’s people like you that cause me to have no hope for this country.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          I see we have a Paulbot. Paul had no chance to win the nomination let alone the election. He appealed to a small bunch of cranks and conspiracy theorists and idiot faux Libertarians who might make up 3% of the electorate. Romney won the nomination because Republican primary voters preferred him to the other candidate who chose to seek the nomination. He lost the election because he wasn’t cool and idiots like you stayed home.

        • avatarStuki says:

          “Romney won the nomination because Republican primary voters preferred him to the other candidate who chose to seek the nomination.”

          Meaning, most Republican primary voters preferred a candidate that is openly for severe gun control, over another, who is absolutely not. As well as preferring a candidate in favor of something awfully close to Obamacare, over another who is not. And in favor of a candidate that thinks taxes were too low under Clinton, versus one who thinks they were just about right under Jefferson. And in favor of one who thinks big Wallstreet banks should be handed a virtually unlimited check of money forcibly confiscated from generations of Americans, over one who was not. Etc., etc.

          I agree Romney won fair and square. But in the large scheme of things, he is infinitely closer to a current day Democrat, than to anything resembling a “conservative”, which in America really ought to mean allegiance to what came before, meaning what the Founders put inn place. Which, interestingly enough, was neither Obamacare, gun controls laws, income taxes nor pretty much anything else that Romney is in favor off, while Paul is not.

          I mean, you know we live in a Dystopian era, when the “Republican” candidate in the self proclaimed “land of the free” fight for higher taxes, more government involvement in health care and anything else, and more gun control than the bloody Taliban. Talk about losing the moral high ground….

        • avatarrosignol says:

          I see we have a Paulbot.

          I prefer to call them ‘Ronulans’. Makes it easier to distinguish the supporters of the father from the son.

          In any case, it barely matters. Ron isn’t running again, neither is Romney.

      • avatarKyle says:

        The GOP’s main problem is it consists mostly of politicians who are “moderate,” as in they are light-hearted versions of Democrats on too many issues, for example gun rights because they don’t know anything about the subject and how to defend them, and then hardline, far-right politicians who are great on things like gun rights, but perceived as way too far right on everything else and way too conservative socially. Hence neither a John McCain nor a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz have a shot in hell at winning.

        Romney shot up big-time in the polls after that first debate with Obama. What the GOP needs is a moderate conservative. And by that I mean not a politician that is a lighter version of a Democrat, but one that is a conservative, and can defend conservatism as a distinct philosophy from leftism, but is perceived as more moderate (for example on issues like same sex marriage and abortion). On guns, it is just a matter of being able to explain why the gun control proposals argued for by the Democrats are unscientific and pointless.

        The Right are deluding themselves if they think Romney lost because of his liberalism and that next time they need to run a “true conservative.” He lost because of his being perceived as too conservative by women, the youth, and by Hispanics (who are scared to death of the GOP).

        The Right is correct that Republicans who, on issues of economics and government, run as light-hearted Democrats, lose. But they are wrong if they think that GOPers running as lighter versions of Democrats on issues like abortion and LGBT rights will lose. To the contrary, the GOP’s hard line conservatism on those two social issues is what turns off many voters, in particular women and youth.

        John McCain wasn’t “cool” like Obama, was terrible at debating, and could not explain conservative principles at all. All he could do was come off as a lighter version of Obama (who was himself running in the General election as a moderate Democrat). Romney explained conservative principles a lot better in his initial debate against Obama and his poll ratings shot up as a result. So the Obama campaign focused on reminding people of his social conservatism on abortion and LGBT issues and he lost the women vote and the youth vote as a result of it, and the Hispanic vote as well which is terrified of the GOP.

        What the GOP needs is someone who can explain conservative principles on government, climate change, environmentalism, economic policy, safety nets, regulation, foreign policy, gun rights, education, etc…someone who is not perceived as far-right, but clearly not left-wing either, someone who people aren’t afraid will be out to gut Medicare or Social Security or anything like that, but who clearly is not a lighter version of a Democrat either, but clearly a conservative. However, someone who on social issues is more liberal. That would win.

        If the GOP insists on continuing to run people perceived as anti-gay and who want to outlaw abortion and who are perceived as ultra-right-wing regarding issues of government and economics, they will continue to lose. For many youth in particular, LGBT rights are as important to them as gun rights are to us.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          This is a good analysis but you fail understand the Democrats aided by their propaganda arm will claim that the candidate will be waging war on women and gays anyway.

          I do note that a candidate is not called RINO if he follows the Democrats lead on social issues. The Democrats don’t support rights. The use gay rights as wedge to abolish marriage and further atomize society. Abortion rights are popular with single women. Married women are typically anti-abortion. The Democrats want to abolish marriage because it makes all women single women. You ought to read Cass Sunstein on marriage before you hop aboard the Democratic Party gay rights train.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          That is an extremely important point, tdiinva. Thanks. As an example of what you wrote, readers should consider the almost favorable treatment by the RNC of Sen. Portman when he decided to support same-sex “marriage,” versus the unremittingly hostile treatment by the RNC of Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock when they failed to use the approved words in expressing their opposition to abortion.

        • avatarKyle says:

          LGBTQ rights to me have nothing to do with the Democratic party and just with being protecting people’s natural rights. Marriage has been understood as a natural right almost as long as self-defense has. I do not agree that the Democrats are trying to destroy marriage to further atomize society. Same-sex marriage is not about destroying marriage. If anything, it is about strengthening it. Marriage is a good institution of society. To the contrary, I think many on the conservative end are not interested in protecting marriage so much as just hating gays, but they hide behind the claim of just being out to protect “traditional marriage.” Not all are like this, but many are.

          And I think it will be much harder for Democrats to go after a GOPer for engaging in a war on women or being anti-gay if they clearly are not.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          By that view, every single generation of Americans, and every generation of human beings before America, has denied homosexuals their natural right to marry. Quite an extraordinary contention. By contrast, with regard to true denials of natural rights – such as slavery, anti-Catholic or otherwise anti-religious bigotry, anti-family prejudice (e.g., forcing all parents to send their children to government schools) – there have been many dissenters in every American generation. (For example, a majority of the Framers opposed slavery, which is why the First Congress voted to ban slavery from the federal territories). No such significant dissent ever existed on the question of marriage – until about 20 years ago when the radical Left decided that we all had to “evolve” according to their dictates or be shouted down and shamed without even any discussion.

        • avatarint19h says:

          Part of the problem is the primaries. Romney did try to present himself as moderate on many social issues, but by that time he already said things in the primaries to pander to the more conservative wing of the party, which wouldn’t be forgotten in the general election.

          This all will keep going for as long as the social conservative club remains a major force in Republican politics (i.e. being big enough that at least some of their support is necessary for a candidate to win the primaries).

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          A complete lie. Romney took NO position in any effort to appease social conservatives. On the contrary. The only strong conservative position he took in the primaries was on illegal immigration.

    • avatarNew Continental Army says:

      What I want to know is, who/when the 15 round capacity ban went into effect in NJ- is it recent? Did Kristie sign that one?

      Even if he doesn’t/didn’t, you know he wants to.

    • avatarFrank Carter says:

      IF Christie signs this into law, I am taking my Marlin 60, beating the barrel and receiver with my sledge hammer into uselessness and turning it in on the 179th day to wherever it needs to be turned in. If I can’t have it no cop will have it either.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        Better yet, don’t turn it in at all, and make them take it from you. Film them when they come in, and post it on the net. They won’t arrest all of us. We can show them that the law is unenforceable.

    • avatarrichard40 says:

      I agree, if Christie signs this bill, I will never support his nomination, and I believe all tea party repubs, and many others will as well. A repub candidate might get away with rhinoism on immigration, but there is no way they can be rhino on such a basic conservative and libertarian value as gun control.

  2. avatarVF77 says:

    Figures. They are Deceivers. Christie signs this and his Prez ambitions are toast. Unless he wants to become a Democrat (which he sorta is anyway I guess huh).

  3. avatarAlan Longnecker says:

    If you’re in NJ and you can’t seem to stop your fellow New Jerseyans (or toxies) from voting for nanny ninnies, MOVE, or be prepared to go to prison for life for owning an “assault rifle” with a capacity of 16 rounds of deadly cop-killing .22 short.

  4. avatarFortWorthColtGuy says:

    If these libtards got everything they wanted, an “assault weapon” would be any full auto, semi auto, revolver, single shot, pump action, lever action, cap and ball, muzzle loader, flintlock or wheel lock firearm, pistol, shotgun, rifle or carbine that has one (1) of the following features…
    1. Barrel of any length
    2. Trigger
    3. Receiver
    4. Buttstock
    5. Grip
    6. Any plastic parts
    7. Any metal parts
    8. Firing pin
    9. Springs
    10. Extractor
    11. Ejector
    12. Bolt
    13. Chamber
    14. Hammer
    15. Striker
    16. Shoulder thingy that goes up

  5. You will be always known as the fat governors from New Jersey. And will never go anywhere.

  6. avatarMothaLova says:

    The left doesn’t care what is covered by their false definitions. Their goal is only to ban, and ban more, and ban more, until everything is banned. Any bill that advances the full ban of all guns is good, no matter what lies or illogic are used.

    • avatarGeneral Zod says:

      Oh, but nobody’s trying to ban our guns. You know, except for the ones they try to ban.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        I have heard that said – almost those same exact words – by many leftists in town council meetings, interviews, etc.

        • avatarGeneral Zod says:

          It’s their standard lie. “Oh, nobody’s trying to take your guns away!” While they try to make owning them a felony.

        • avatarpeirsonb says:

          But they’re not taking them away. That would involve conflict. They’re just making ownership a felony, thereby “fixing the glitch” and letting the problem sort itself out.

          Worked in Connecticu…..waitaminute….

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Exactly, exactly. One guy looked me straight in the face and tried to argue that it’s not confiscation if it’s done pursuant to a “law” passed by the legislature. I asked him whether he would call it confiscation if a law were passed making it a felony for him to own his Complete Works of Marx and Mao. He didn’t seem to grasp the analogy because, like so many leftist activists, he was dumb as a cow.

        • avatarpeirsonb says:

          Next time tell him to look up the Enabling Act of 1933, duly passed by a legislative body, and THEN get back to you…

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Nice one.

          Of course, there’s no point trying to reason with such madcaps. They’re like two-year-olds. “I want this! I want this! I want it now!”

    • avatarNew Continental Army says:

      Literally they want everything banned. Not just guns. Everything. If the Liberals are allowed to march their armies of darkness all over the face of the earth, then human race will enter a perpetual cycle of every object in existence being banned, repetitively, until the human species itself is banned.

  7. avatarMike Crognale says:

    Danthemann5 that would include tennis rackets and ping pong paddles I guess. Slingshots too.

    • avatardanthemann5 says:

      Of course, there have been literally tens of deaths throughout history due to violent tennis racket use. It’s time to end this menace once and for all, for the children!

      • avatarMike Crognale says:

        ^This^ we have a winner!

      • avatarNew Continental Army says:

        Yup, that’s how they say it.

        “Over the past few centuries, over TWENTY SEVEN PRECIOUS LIVES HAVE BEEN BRUTALLY ENDED by these evil death dealing bad mitten rackets. BAN NOW!”

  8. avatarToby in KS says:

    The emphasis on this article was on fixed magazines. I don’t know much about NJ Law. Does this mean detachable magazines are already banned? Specifically, the 10 round magazine in a Ruger 10/22? That’s like putting a ban on baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie.

    This stuff never surprises me, but always amazes me. I will never understand how the phrase “shall not be infringed” gets ignored in the courts so flagrantly.

    • avatarGeneral Zod says:

      The New Jersey law proposes to treat fixed magazines the same as detachable magazines. So the 1950′s vintage Winchester 74 your dad taught you to shoot on? Now it’s an “assault rifle” in New Jersey. And, of course, you can’t simply buy another tubular, fixed magazine to install on it, so you would have to get rid of the rifle or destroy it to keep from being a felon.

      But nobody’s trying to take your guns away, right?

  9. avataranonymous coward says:

    Laws like this are Christmas gifts for the for profit incarceration industry. The “Felons” a ban like this will produce will be even more easily controlled (profitable) than recreational pot smokers.

  10. avataruncommon_sense says:

    You know something, their proposed ban which extends to .22 caliber rifles almost makes sense if their intent really is to limit the capability of spree killers to cause havoc.

    Headshots with a .22 caliber 40 grain lead bullet coming out of a rifle will be lethal in almost all cases. And even shots to the torso could prove ultimately lethal. (The small caliber simply takes longer to cause dangerous blood loss than a larger caliber projectile … but it does nevertheless cause blood loss.)

    Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT support in any way, shape, or form New Jersey’s proposed ban. I figure that some people may be overlooking the potential of the lowly and often chided .22 LR cartridge.

    • avatarPublius says:

      Yeah, that 10 round magazine in his P22 really slowed down Cho when he shot up Virginia Tech….

  11. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    Confiscation Blues.

  12. avatarCM says:

    What else can you expect from a state that won’t even let you pump your own gas? Heck, you people can’t even be trusted to make a left-hand turn! If thousands of constituents started calling the governor he might think twice but IMO, NJ has already demonstrated a lack of dignity and self respect by allowing onerous legislation to dominate their lives.

  13. avatarST says:

    Two points.

    One: Christies chances aren’t hurt at all if he signs this into law. At the national level, for every “Molon Laabe!” voter, there’s probably five who don’t know this is even happening.Last cycle Romney won the nomination despite having a gun control record not dissimilar from Obama’s at that date. Us gun owners just don’t rank highly enough at the national level to even matter. If we did, Ron Paul would be in his second term right now.

    Two: from what I understand, NJ law doesn’t require Christie to sign it. All he need do is sit tight for 90 days and it automatically becomes law. If he gets called on the carpet, he’ll just say that standing aside was his way of respecting the wishes of NJ citizens, who are culturally more anti gun then the national zeitgeist.

    Three: folks , lets get real. At the state and lower levels of government there are big differences in the GOP vs Democrats , especially regarding the RKBA. But at the national level, it’s a wash. We’re talking GMC Denali versus Escalade here: same stuff under the suit but a different badge label. No matter who the GOP puts up for national office, they will have to be centrist or left leaning to even have a passable shot at the White House.

    “But the GOP needs MOAR conservative candidates!Then they’ll get more votes!”

    Except the demographics are different now. The maths pretty clear- unless you can appeal to the liberals in population heavy states like CA, NYS, and Florida among others, you ain’t going to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In twenty years, it may not be mathematically possible for the GOP to win the White House again. Trey Gowdy might be the best candidate for the GOP to run in terms of idealogical purity, but the kitchen table calculator means Reps like him will never win national office.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      I hear this rationalization all the time from people who want to run liberal Republicans for president. But the left runs hard-core leftists all the time for president (Clinton being the partial exception). Gore came dang close to winning in 2000, and Kerry did, too, in 2004 (unlike McCain and Romney, who lost by sizeable margins).

      And speaking of McCain and Romney and their like, none of the liberal Republican candidates has won since 1980, with the exception of Bush I who was riding on the coattails of Reagan.

      So why again should we nominate another liberal Republican? Just be honest and tell us you’re a liberal Republican and that’s why you want a liberal Republican for president. There’s no basis for thinking it’s more strategic.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Why don’;t you pay any attention to Ralph on this. He explained it to you before. Romney faced a veto proof Democratic majority legislature. He didn’t propose anything and engaged in damage limitation. The Constitution has more in it than the Second Amendment. I suggest you read both the US and relevant state constitutions before making pronouncements. Christie was a flash in the pan. He wasn’t going to be competitive in 2016 under any circumstances. Romney lost because Newt Gingrich, father of the individual mandate, gave the Democrats a series of talking points to use against Romney. The other factor was the Millennials or Generation Null as I like to call them, who voted to commit generational suicide because Obama was cool and Romney wasn’t.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        There is one thing I like about Christie: he’s willing to fight for the issues he cares about.

        Most establishment Republicans are go-along-to-get-along types that aren’t willing to fight for anything.

        The problem is that Christie doesn’t seem to care about the issues I care about.

    • avatarAnother Robert says:

      Anybody who thinks there is no difference between Dems and Repubs on gun control at the national level is not paying attention, to say the least. We know Dems at the national level are all-out for gun control. If the Repubs were the same, we would still have the Clinton AWB in effect, and covering even more guns. There would be no “free states”, and we would all be limited to 10-round mags , if any semi-auto was still legal. Who do you think kept Obama and Biden from making any hay out of Newtown, gun-control wise? Sheesh…

  14. avatarLarry says:

    If you have never had the pleasure of shooting one of those Browning .22 semi auto tube fed rifles then seek one out I have one that belonged to my mother in the early 1930s where the ammo is fed into the buttstock tube from the bottom rather than the side as seen in the photo above. It is one of the sweetest shooting .22 short semi auto plinkers I have ever shot…. When I was about 12 I fashioned speed loaders out of sections of old telescoping auto antenna from the junk yard
    Totally fun gun
    Sort of amazed that the grabbers have not gone after the rim fire pump guns starting with Browning’s 1890 for Winchester as with practice you can put out rapid fire strings from a good pump almost as fast as from a semi auto

  15. avatarAndy Roberts says:

    To all the N.J. Elmers that threw your fellow N.J. gun-owners to the wolves because their guns looked scarier than yours, in the mistaken belief that the wolves would eat you last, well now your time has come. The wolves are at your door, and they’re hungry for more. Now it’s your turn. I predict a bumper crop of new N.J. felons for 2015.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      If anybody is an Elmer it’s you. New Jersey is not Arizona. It is a deep blue state run by a coalition of politicos and criminals.

      • avatarAndy Roberts says:

        I don’t hunt, so how could I be a Fudd? And New Jersey IS NOT Arizona? And they’re blue? Holy shit, thanks for the news, I’ll alert the media. Thanks for the insights. much appreciated.

        Sincerely,

        GFY

  16. avatarJus Bill says:

    This is my shocked face.

  17. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    This is why I stick to to bolt-action rifles with fixed magazines as a subject of the People’s Republic of New Jersey, they’re last on the progressives’ ban list. I hope things don’t get too crazy for another year and a half before I escape to greener, cheaper, and less-regulated pastures in the United States of America, but with the neighboring People’s Republic of New York going full-retard in under a month, who knows.

  18. avatarDBM says:

    So glad I don’t live in that rat hole of a state anymore.

  19. avatarSouthern Cross says:

    Typical how laws made in haste and ignorance without any review of potential consequences.

    Ironically, at least there are consultative committees on firearms which can approve or reject proposed legislation in most Australian states. The anti-gun groups complain that these committees are staffed by industry and interest groups but when the anti-gun groups were invited to join the committees to allow their opinions to raised, they refused because the discussions were covered under a non-disclosure agreement.

  20. avatar4NSICS2 Security Consultants Inc. Gary Hazel, President. says:

    WHERES THE NRA ON THIS ISSUE?
    WHY AREN’T THEY DOING ANYTHING TO STOP HIM?
    WHAT WILL BE THE POSITION ON HIM WHEN HE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT?
    CANT WE EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME NATIONALLY IF HE WINS?
    VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT HIM!

  21. avatarDTAL says:

    What? New Jersey is still considered part of America?

  22. avatarJoshuaS says:

    I sometimes wonder if even the anti-gunners have gotten dumber in the last few years. Compare the universal background check in California to the one in Colorado…the 20 years between them, you would think Colorado’s would be “improved” (from a purely legal/technical perspective). Nope it is far worse, causing unneeded hurdles in just lending someone a gun (CA’s law allows a loan for a month, or during hunting season)

    The same with the mag cap…our law exempts tube fed 22′s, and tube fed lever actions. Seems like they are so cocky they want to be challenged on every level.

  23. avatarFrank says:

    Always knew NJ had a bunch of socialist idiots; just never realized the scope of the problem.

    • avatarCharles Wilson says:

      Frank, I don’t have much sympathy with socialism except for Social Security, the Interstate highways, the federal water projects throughout the United States, Medicare, the Veterans Administration, and the half of Medicaid that subsidizes nursing homes. But, one way or the other, New Jersey’s new gun law (which I think is plenty stupid and wrong, so you know) has nothing to do with socialism.

      I realize that you’re a sputtering, drooling wingnut who can’t actually analyze anything, so you say the first thing that comes to your mind — poopy-pants socialist! — like the left-wingers who (these days) will accuse people who disagree with them of being a slave to the Koch Brothers or whatever else their greatest fear is.

      But someone has to tell you, Frank, that you’re an idiotic exposed nerve ending. I thought I’d volunteer because I happen to be in the mood.

      • avatarDonM says:

        SS is a ponzi scheme, made worse by the fact that people are forced into it. Ponzie was a fraud, but didn’t force people into his scheme. It will hopefully die before I get any money from it. Interstate highways are a great source of graft for companies with dirt movers and political clout. We all know now how rotten the VA is. Take a bunch of great doctors and nurses, and subject them to rule by idiot bureaucrats, and watch the patients die from waiting. It should be replaced by an ID card and voucher system, so that veterans can get service related care anywhere. Medicare is another project that is bleeding money, raising heath care costs. With socialist systems, the big promises come first, and after that, some little bit of service, and after that the whopping bill. Federal programs like SS, VA, Medicare are bad programs whose main purpose it to reduce the market for good programs honestly funded.

  24. avatarVincent L. Gambino says:

    @tdiinva: Are you referring to the very same Mitt Romney who just came out in favor of increasing the minimum wage? Yeah, that position clearly reflects the mind of a committed conservative In fact, it is well covered in the Progressive Playbook under “How to Eliminate Jobs for Teens and Part Time Workers in Order to Make Them Entirely Dependent on the Welfare State”. The Godfather of Obamacare never was anything but a smile and a suit; a walking,talking photo-op. He is a moronic chump for any feel good meme that comes waltzing down the political highway. Unfortunately, the Stupid Party firmly believes that a “big tent” idiot like Romney can reverse their fortunes. That leaves His Majesty Corpus Christie as a viable candidate for the nomination no matter what his actions on the reprehensible 10 round rule. He is much more likely to be done in by BridgeGate and similar character revelations than by his lack of political principles.

    -VinnyG

  25. avatarEddieInCA says:

    Gun Rights Advocates are a cult. Plain and simple. A cult around guns, about guns, for guns – consequences be damned. We’re the only civilized nation in the world that has regular mass shootings.

    We have the technology to have smart guns, yet the NRA blocks that technology from reaching citizens. Why?

    Cowards. All of you. Cowards.

    You want a gun? Join a militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

    • avatarjerry says:

      Oh Eddie you you card!! You actually stopped jerking off to your autographed Hillary photo to pay us a visit. GFY.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      Gosh, if only the NRA were that powerful, we might be able to restore freedom to America. But, alas, the NRA has less power over technological development than a single EPA bureaucrat.

  26. avatarEmailZola says:

    What does it matter if you cannot shoot the guns. I have not been able to purchase 22 long rifle rounds for over a year. Factories are at record pace yet ammo sellers rarely get any rimfire cartridges in. And when they do, the ammo flies out the door.

  27. We need to get the facts right on this one. The final legislation that passed *exempts* fixed tube fed .22′s. it calls them “Boy scout guns” and dismisses them as little more than toys.

    Unfortunately, I guess my Ruger 10/22 with its 25 round detachable magazine is still considered an evil assault rifle.

    If we’re going to put pressure on Christie, we have to get the facts right so we can’t be simply dismissed as “yahoos” who don’t even know what’s in the bill.

    • Update: An amendment was added to AB 2006 before the law went to Governor Cristie. The ban on .22 semi-autos with tubular magazines was changed. Here is the amendment:

      (4) A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds. 1“Assault firearm” shall not include a semi-automatic rifle 2[with] which has2 an attached tubular device 2[designed to accept 15 rounds,] and 2which is2 capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.1

      and

      y. “Large capacity ammunition magazine” means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than [15] 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm. 1The term shall not include an attached tubular device 2[designed to accept 15 rounds, and] which is2 capable of 2[operating only with] holding only2 .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.1

      The amended bill does not change the .22 rifles that are already banned by the previous definiton. Those include many Marlin model 60 versions, .22 short versions of the Browning semi-auto, Remington 552 rifles, Remington 550 rifles, and any other .22 rimfire with a tubular magazine that holds more than 15 rounds of .22 ammunition.

  28. avatarNick says:

    So when is the date that he must act by to keep this from passing and going into law?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.