phil murphy toy guns
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

New Jersey’s top lawmakers unveiled sweeping gun legislation Thursday that would significantly restrict when and where guns can be carried outside of the home, a bill they touted as “the nation’s strongest measure concerning concealed carry.”

The bill would, among other things, require people wanting to carry guns in public to purchase liability insurance — the first statewide mandate of its kind in the nation should the bill become law — and banning guns from being carried in 25 broad categories, including but not limited to government buildings, health care facilities, airports, casinos and private properties where the owners have not given express permission to have guns. Violations would be deemed a third-degree crime.

“My personal belief is that our way of life is being threatened, essentially, by certain things that have gone on in the federal government,” state Senate President Nick Scutari said during a Statehouse press conference announcing the proposal. “We need to address that [with this] particular piece of legislation that we’re going to drop today.”

Gov. Phil Murphy has vowed to sign the measure, which comes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year which effectively broadened the scope of who can carry guns in public. The proposal outlined on Thursday broadly mirrors what Murphy, a progressive Democrat, has previously proposed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Daniel Han in New Jersey Poised To Enact ‘Nation’s Strongest’ Gun Law After Supreme Court Ruling

Previous Post
Next Post


    • You’ll stop laughing when Tank Abrams makes you give up your AR, get a concealed carry license, and picture her naked.

      • You’re right. I’ll stop laughing if/when she gives the order. I’ll simply replace my smile with my best war face. Not giving up shit, not just keyboard warrior talk, these commies are walking a razor thin line. I’d love for the federales to stack up on my door. I’ll show them just how much I’ve “got their 6”.

        • In Florida, we have rednecks.

          In Georgia, they have *Rednecks* :

    • Exactly. And what’s even more hilarious is they present with a straight, oh so sincere face, when they KNOW it will NEVER do what they say it will. LMFAO.

      • Another sneaky Gun Control scheme pops ups because by all accounts Gun Control is alive and well…Why I did not get excited about serial numbers being ruled unconstitutional when the case is not closed and if it ever is Gun Control zealots will work around it as clearly seen in this Bruen Be Damned article.

        Bottom line…Until Gun Control is Ruled Unconstitutional and Abolished such ridiculous tit for tat shenanigans with a sick agenda that History confirms is rooted in racism and genocide will obviously continue.

        • Don’t know why the so called Supreme Court doesn’t just put this issue to rest by ruling that all gun control laws are against the constitutional rights of American citizens. Think of all the lawyers that would be looking for work.

        • “{SCotUS}…just put this issue to rest by ruling that all gun control laws are against the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

          Too much work. This way, they make the Leftist Scum ™ check their own behavior.

          If we just whisper in their ear often enough that if they didn’t like the ‘Bruen’ decision, that it would be a really *bad* idea to let a law get to the big, powerful, *scary* Black man (St. Thomas) on the high Court and really crap all over their corn flakes.

          Saul Alinsky 101 yet again – “Power is what someone *thinks* you have.”…

      • But it MIGHT do what they hope it will do – pander for Dem votes in the upcoming election, after which when it is blown out of the water by SCOTUS no one will remember anything except “We tried our best and those damn Trump SCOTUS judges ruined it for you!”

    • lawsuits,lawsuits and still more lawsuits…we all knew this was going to happen…but the ground beneath their feet has grown a bit shaky…

      • The Sullivan Law passed about 1912. My uncle was old enough to remember when it passed; mostly because Grandpappy was patting himself on the back for getting out of NYC, and moving to ‘gun-friendly’ NJ. Oops.

        A state with inadequate protection of self defense rights and lots of mandatory insurance laws is controlled by organized crime, every time!

  1. So what exactly is the penalty for an elected official for violating a constitutional right? Until they have more consequences than forking over taxpayers money this will never end at least until someone assigns consequences to them and of course that would be illegal.

    • Those consequences should come via voters at the ballot box. That’s about the only sure and fast way of dealing with actual denial of rights.

      The endless lawsuits and subsequent appeals take forever and appear to be unenforceable if the wrong people are in majority. Throw all of them out in November, then seek to go after their ill-gotten financial gains, if in no other manner via those 87K new IRS Agents. Return it and their properties to the voters.

    • Well, that’s the problem. If elected officials just start not caring about the law, supposedly that should be seen as “bad” and they get thrown out by voters.

      But when voters don’t care, well that means values and culture have diverted so far it’s time to start making new countries so people can pursue their own destiny.

      The liberals have their own religion and values that are farrrrrr from the constitution. They need they own country. We are seeing the embers of future violent changes.

    • The Constitution is not, and cannot be, a guarantee of rights. Think of the Constitution as “law control” and then think about why “gun control” doesn’t work: bad people ignore laws.

    • Depends. There’s a well laid out order of operations.

      Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Jury Box -> Cartridge Box.

      You’re nearing the tail end of #2. Things continue apace, you’ll get #4. Well, if you can reach down deep in your pants and find a pair.

      • Well with Demtards getting away with all manner of shenanigans, some quite literally getting away with murder, I think we are long past #3.

        • There’s temporal overlap for all of the options and there’s a reversible reaction/kinetics aspect to this as well where there can be equilibrium or you can lose equilibrium.

        • Consider the mechanism of Red States trying to secede from a Blue Union:
          – are there very many examples of completely peaceful secessions?

          – Chicago is surrounded by much redder counties; how would separation/secession look?

          – what is “national defense” of however the post-secession unfolds

          – is there any longer a “national budget”, a “national debt”?
          – – can/how would the absorption of assigned be peacefully resolved?

          – will there be red/blue borders within what are now States?
          – – how will borders be peacefully established and enforced?
          – – what about border transit?
          – – what about immigration, or deportation?

          What if the “Red Union”, or “Blue Union” utterly fails?

          Overall, Civil War 1.0 and 2.0 saw the relatively contiguous arrangement between colonies and states on either side of the war. Today, Red and Blue are quite intermingled. How will the logistics that must cross new national borders operate fairly? Civil war in a nation as physically large as the US won’t be a tidy affair to conduct, much less a tidy affair to clean up the aftermath of Civil War 3.0.

          Oh, but you say, “That will all be negotiated”. Really? Peaceful negotiations between two unalterably opposed visions of national future that led to separation in the first place? Remember, the separation will be based on very hostile elements within the current nation. If a peaceful separation is possible, then we would not be in the cartridge box solution. If we are in the cartridge box stage of national development, post-Civil War 3.0, there will be no room for negotiation in the aftermath, probably leading to a never ending war between the States.

  2. As usual, no mention by the libtards of actually punishing thugs and the like for their reign of terror on law abiding citizens.
    Normal folk be damned.

    • Normal folk are chattel. You exist to serve the state and its elites through your productive energy until you become a liability. Then, well, that liability must be dealt with.

      Mostly, you always have. We just got pretty good at disguising this early the the last century.

      You’d think old people would recognize this with the current SS/Medicare things going on. Guess we’ll find out early next month.

      “Remember I said that financial repression means engineering an inflation rate in the area of 4 to 6% and thereby achieving a nominal GDP growth rate of, say, 6 to 8%, while interest rates are kept at a lower level. Savers won’t like it, but debtors and young people will. People’s wages will rise. Financial repression moves wealth from savers to debtors, and from old to young people.

      Why do you think they’re so gung-ho to control the schools? LOL, it’s not to your benefit.

  3. There’s not a single instance of an insurer in the entire United States who will cover liability arising from a deliberate criminal act by the insured. Laws in most States even prohibit or restrict liability of an insurance company when it comes down to criminal acts. they’re going to try to mandate liability insurance when there is no underwriter that will write a policy like that.

    • Officer Bill,

      “[T]hey’re going to try to mandate liability insurance when there is no underwriter that will write a policy like that.”

      And you are implying that is an oversight because … ?????

      I believe a more accurate understanding is that this aspect of the proposed law is intentional by design. As people like to say in software parlance, “That is a feature, not a bug!”

    • It’s nothing more than window dressing for the sheep and punishment for supporters of their political rivals. Oh, and $$ for insurance companies. Imagine customers being forced to use your services.

    • “….they’re going to try to mandate liability insurance when there is no underwriter that will write a policy like that.”

      I see where this is heading.
      The ‘ever bigger gubment’ scum will just create ANOTHER bureaucratic agency to fund and staff.

      Never too many ‘d’ voting hogs at the trough when you can just lengthen it.
      Especially while using the $s of your political opponent’s voters to build the ‘infinity’ trough.

  4. “My personal belief is that our way of life is being threatened, essentially, by certain things that have gone on in the federal government,” state Senate President Nick Scutari said…”

    Spoken like a true would-be tyrant. Threatening their “way of life” should be celebrated by all free people, even in New Jersey, just like it is in states like IA or SD.


  6. I swear, civil war 2.0 looks more and more likely every day. If it’s not sparked off by patriots who say “you’ve stomped on the Constitution enough, this ends now”, it’ll be started by spoiled, immature liberals who throw temper-tantrums screaming “I won’t do it and you can’t make me”.
    That’s EXACTLY what NY, NJ and CA are currently doing in regards to the Buren decision; throwing a little-child fit screaming “it’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not fair!”, and their equally moronic, childish followers are praising them the whole way.

    • It ultimately falls to each and every resident of those states (every man, woman, and child) to stand up to make the necessary changes through their vote.

    • IMHO it happens when the failings of the central planners manifest as their plans utterly destroying the systems those plans are implemented in.

      The ensuing chaos is not controllable. The hard truth about 2020 is that once riots grew to a certain size there was no controlling them, and that’s when 1% of the population goes nuts.

      When it’s 25%+, .gov’s done and over with in its current iteration. That’s where you get a revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

      [Example of a major issue soon to face us, don’t get dickbent about this, please.]

      And that’s coming. You can see it in the GOP now championing the policies of FDR and the New Deal as conservative touchstones specifically due to the failure of the policies affecting those who have come to rely on them.

      It might play well to the elderly to “protect Social Security because they paid for it” but there can be no doubt about what Social Security now is. It’s welfare for old people at the expense of the younger. The truth hurts, I know, but the numbers don’t lie.

      Your average retiree today is “owed” an average of ~$570,000 just in Social Security payments thanks to inflation.

      Yet, if we do a VERY generous calculation and assume that such a person made the average current salary for their entire 47 year working life they only paid $412,900 into the system.

      Where does the extra $157,100 come from? Either from those currently working via higher SS taxes or from the Fed’s money printer, which only drives inflation higher.

      Now, there are currently about 76.4 million Boomers who are retired or near retirement age (because the youngest Boomers turn 65 by 2030). That means they represent an unfundable liability of $11,994,800,000,000, $11.9 Trillion.

      And of course, current inflation is encouraging even MORE .gov issued COLAs…

      And with SS taxes at 12.4% and overall tax payments, on average, taking 55% of income from workers… how much more blood does this stone have to give before something breaks and breaks badly? Not much considering the backdrop.

      This is how governments fall.

      • “It might play well to the elderly to “protect Social Security because they paid for it” but there can be no doubt about what Social Security now is. It’s welfare for old people…”

        It is welfare, plain and simple; time to take off the costume and treat welfare as welfare.

        Not only was the name Social Security a coverup, the entire setup is just baloney, from start to finish; a con – establishing a government pseudo pyramid scheme that really isn’t there.

        Soc Sec is not savings, investment, or a personal account of any kind. The theory that the elderly are somehow robbing younger generations is part of the government fraud. People pay taxes into the Treasury, from which all government funds are paid…even Soc Sec. What comes back out in the form of Soc Sec benefits doesn’t come from some sort of “lockbox” into which younger people are paying for future benefits of older people.

        Taxes is taxes is taxes. Government determines how much is paid to whom, for whichever reason the government chooses. Truth is that Soc Sec is funded from the general treasury, like any other government program; difference is that you don’t get to see how much of your taxes go to which program (except, allegedly, Soc Sec).

        In short, Soc Sec cannot go “bankrupt”, unless it is politically useful. The central government could simply set up any sort of welfare payout they like, and send whatever money government likes to those on welfare (like all the other welfare programs).

        The amount of taxes people allegedly pay into Soc Sec could simply be paid to the government as just taxes, with no identity, no myth of “lockbox”, or personal account. In the end, everyone pays taxes, and government spends the taxes (and new debt/newly created “money”) on a huge budget (completely devoid of a relation to taxes taken in).

        Time to overturn the huge social engineering fraud of Soc Sec. Welfare is welfare. Let’s admit it, and quite lying to ourselves.

        • The real question that should be asked is “What is welfare?”.

          It’s a system of control. That’s what it is. By design or not, that’s what it eventually becomes no matter the original intention.

          Your average Boomer has about $202,000 in retirement money privately saved. They’re “owed” $570,000 for Social Security and many bank on that being paid. Their retirement is 26% funded by the retiree and 74% government controlled, by force no less.

          How very, very convenient for government. Especially as they decide to strip-mine the retirees, which is exactly where this is going. But in the immediate, target inflation rates higher than *cough* original estimated *cough* are quite useful to keep old folks on a string, you know, where .gov controllers believe such people should be.

          But how to strip mine the retirees? Just adjust SS so that, statistically, Boomers have to sell hard assets at a discount in order to survive. Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard will be more than happy to take your house at a 50%+ discount. In fact, they are now setting up the cash warchests to do exactly that next year.

          But imagine a world your average retiree just saved that SS tax money over their life then they might well have had another $400K to play with, tripling their current privately held equity in a cash position while offering the opportunity to have grown that through proper investment too.

          Anthony Weiner said that “Republicans want grandma to eat cat food”. The truth is that people like Weiner want grandma to be cat food. No matter how you cut it, the current set of policies makes it very clear that you really are the carbon they want to eliminate.

          I suggest that reciprocal feelings are warranted. And don’t think for a second that this doesn’t apply to 80%+ of the GOP either.

        • In my plan, the lockbox would only be used for Social Security and Medicare. It would have two different locks. One of the keys would be kept by the president. The other key would be sealed in a small magnetic container, and placed under the bumper of the senate majority leader’s car.

          The lockbox would also be camouflaged. To all outward appearances, it would be a leather bound addition of The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, but it wouldn’t be. It would be – the lockbox.

  7. Virtue signalling at the taxpayers expense……….priceless.
    So what happens when the people who pay the taxes all leave and NJ is left with nothing but welfare class dependents? Detroit?

    • Shire-man,

      I seriously doubt that any significant number of the people who actually pay the taxes in New Jersey will move out of state.

      And even if that happens, the Welfare Class will be clamoring for hand-outs, which the politicians will be all-too-happy to promise in exchange for the votes of the Welfare Class. Of course the plight of the downtrodden Welfare Class will deeply move the “bleeding heart liberals” who pay the taxes and remain in the state–and they will also clamor for “charity” for the Welfare Class which the politicians will be all-too-happy to promise in exchange for their votes. That is how Progressives consolidate and expand their power.

      • UC, I have friends and family living in northern NJ. The largest numbers of voters are in the suburbs of NYC and Philadelphia and vote just like those cities.
        The vast majority of these people have no interest in owning or carrying a firearm. In April, I was in the NY/NJ area for a family event and visited with people who live in upscale NJ neighborhoods. I heard many stories of brazen home and vehicle burglary and vehicle theft from driveways. Their solution is video surveillance and calling the police. Unsurprisingly these homeowners are terrified of a home invasion at “o dark thirty”. I mentioned that in the event our home was broken into my wife and I have readily accessible standard capacity handguns and an AR. This solution was a bridge too far for these people.
        I have no sympathy for the majority of people in NJ who have voted for these politicians for the last 30 or 40 years

        • 70 U Code RT,

          The simple fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of broken people in our world. My neighbor across the street is from northern New Jersey and is the living embodiment of the typical New York City mentality that “guns = bad”.

          I don’t personally understand the psychological dynamic which drives some people to apparently WANT to be submissive (to the point of their own extreme detriment) and to WANT other people to demean and abuse them. And yet it is much more common than seems possible.

  8. He is absolutely correct. Our way of life IS being threatened.

    Every Democrat that holds public office is a threat to the American way of life.

  9. New Jersey’s top lawmakers unveiled sweeping gun legislation … that would significantly restrict when and where guns can be carried outside of the home, a bill they touted as “the nation’s strongest measure concerning concealed carry.”

    At the risk of stating the obvious, criminals violate laws which interfere with their lifestyle so this proposed law will not change criminal behavior. That makes it equally obvious, therefore, that New Jersey intends this law to change the behavior of good people who do follow laws. So this law reveals that New Jersey’s legislature views good people who follow laws as somehow dangerous and a threat to their society–an obvious contradiction. (Good people who follow laws are therefore by definition NOT a threat to society.)

    Having said the above, there is also the distinct possibility that the New Jersey legislature is simply evil, despises the Working Class, and wishes to foist upon the Working Class as much pain, misery, and suffering as possible.

  10. Murphy is a gangster and leftist turd. I’m sure many votes that initially put him in office and will keep him there are as questionable as any other election(s) from 2018 to the present. He’s another jackass that needs to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned for treason.

    • Phil Murphy, Gavin Newsom, el al. by their actions and verbiage daily prove that they have no respect for the Constitution or “We the People”. While at the same time they treat and speak of thugs as good citizens and good citizens as thugs. The oath of office means nothing to them and there should be a way to remove treasonous persons from any political office. GunVote.

  11. As is the case with most of these blatantly unconstitutional dog and pony shows, compliance will hover around 0%. Law enforcement, with their limited resources, time, and interest, will not be leaping at the chance to harass the law-abiding.

    Antigun laws are only as good as their enforcement and many Chiefs and Sheriffs have made it clear they’re not going along with the program.

    • “…compliance will hover around 0%. Law enforcement, with their limited resources, time, and interest, will not be leaping at the chance to harass the law-abiding.”

      For an evil fascist, laws like that are ‘hole cards’ they can use to go after someone who dares to challenge them…

  12. How does gun liability insurance work? Can someone explain this to me? How can you purchase insurance toward a crime you could commit? It goes against the entire concept of insurance.

    • The premise being gun owners might hurt somebody imagine if we took this concept to certain geographic areas with higher than average crime or focused on certain demographics who commit a higher percentage of crime and demanded these people carry extra insurance.

      By the numbers we can pinpoint with great accuracy who will offend, where they will offend and who the victims will be. If this insurance scheme is such a great idea lets apply it with the data to support it.

      Two obvious problems are 1)insurance does not pay out for intentionally criminal actions and 2)that’d be rayyyyyciiiisssss

    • “How does gun liability insurance work? Can someone explain this to me? How can you purchase insurance toward a crime you could commit? It goes against the entire concept of insurance.”

      First of all, what is commonly “sold” as the concept of “liability insurance, is regulated by the individual states. That is, the state can rule that pre-paid legal services is not insurance, and cannot be sold as such.

      Second, anyone can buy liability insurance, commonly known as “umbrella” policies (the details of coverage may differ), actual insurance that protects a person, much the same as insurance against fire/wind/automobile damages, or medical insurance. Such insurance does not cover crimes; never has.

      Thus, “gun liability” insurance is presented as protection for a gunshot victim who is injured through non-criminal acts. Yes, such circumstance may be rare, but the insurance is in place. What isn’t routinely detailed in laws such as NJ proposes, is whether the las specifically requires insurance designed to reimburse a gunshot victim, should a gun owner be convicted at trial for commuting a crime (such as ND, or injury by a third party who gains unlawful possession of a gun and commits a crime).

      If the proposed liability insurance is supposed to include criminal acts, then such a law is impossible to comply with…a concept already dealt with by the Cali Supreme Court, which ruled that a law that cannot be complied with remains a valid law.

      In any event, Cali, NY and NJ are simply stalling a full implementation of “Bruen”. SCOTUS will never rule that any constitutionally-protected natural, human and civil right is absolute.

      • Ok sounds like it’s a complete clusterfark. So as for the aspect of insuring non-criminal acts with a gun, aren’t these incredibly rare? Wouldn’t the cost of creating the policy vastly outweigh the premiums? Wouldn’t this cost pennies?

        • So as for the aspect of insuring non-criminal acts with a gun, aren’t these incredibly rare? Wouldn’t the cost of creating the policy vastly outweigh the premiums?

          Umbrella policies exist already. Coverage is simply a cut-and-paste exercise in listing what will and will not be covered. Not every umbrella policy, everywhere will cover damage caused by a firearm. However, those that do generally do not have outrageous costs. Have had a general liability contract/policy for decades. $5m coverage runs about $175/yr. The only “wrinkle” is that I must also have home and auto insurance with the same company. My space gun is covered for theft, misuse by a third party, and general accident (as in I drop a gun on someone’s foot, and the policy will cover medical bills, or someone is injured by the slide cutting their finger because the pulled the trigger on an empty gun, without first removing their finger from the chamber).

          Essentially, coverage for firearm liability isn’t always a custom policy, requiring special underwriting.

          So, it may be useful to have pre-paid legal services, and an umbrella policy.

      • IIRC, many of these proposals also contain a “pool” concept similar to “uninsured motorist insurance”. Again, IIRC, actuaries have said this would be something prohibitively expensive for law abiding owners because most people who are bystanders and get a GSW are not being shot by errant rounds from a legal shooting in the first place.

        The point is to design this specifically to make the insurance something that normies cannot afford and require it as a prerequisite of gun ownership specifically for the purpose of barring people from said ownership.

        As such, it’s a privately administered, publicly enforced poll tax.

        • If bystanders are the alleged beneficiaries, and laws prohibit insuring illegal acts, then the actuaries are wrong; no such insurance can legally be created (there is no right to self defense that includes hitting someone other than the armed attacker). At that point, cost is irrelevant, because there can be no such insurance product to purchase.

          If the intent is to force the public to buy non-existent insurance, and the lack of such insurance prohibits the purchase of firearms, then government successfully achieves the intended effect of making legal firearm purchases impossible.

          A mandatory personal liability policy that does not exist, and cannot thus be purchased, means that a person without insurance who uses a firearm in successful self-defense immediately becomes an unlawful gun owner. The beauty of that is not only can there be no new firearm purchases, all firearms become essentially useless…without actual confiscation (or the use of “doorkickers”).

        • Again, going completely from memory going back nearly a decade:

          IIRC, the actuaries looked at GSWs resulting from non-criminal actions on the part of the insured person.

          The point they made about the pool being that because of the stats on DGUs, it would be more expensive to insure a, say, 9mm pistol or a 5.56 rifle than to insure something like a .30-06 bolt gun.

          The result of that is that the financing the “pool” for DGU-gone-wrong related injuries would be funded poorly unless the price of getting such insurance on “common DGU guns” was astronomical.

          This would change gun-owner behavior and therefore change the typical DGU gun-of-choice to less commonly used DGU guns, like high powered bolt actions. Essentially this would be creating a cascade over a fairly short time period where the situation became that getting the insurance priced out the vast majority.

          I never really dove into that deeply, so I can’t really comment on how correct it may or may not be but they didn’t seem to think this could function any other way than it does for aircraft insurance. It would be cost prohibitive to most people, just like owning an aircraft is, and mostly for the same reason; the cost of insuring what you own.

    • Liability insurance is so that I will have to register any firearm I have/own and then pay a criminal fir breaking into my home if he is shot in the commission of that crime with any firearm I have/own. In the event the criminal lives, I pay for the medical bills. If the die, I pay the criminals’ family.

      Either way, the state is forcing law abiding citizens to pay criminals.

      The Dems are doing everything possible to turn civilization upside down.

      • “Liability insurance is so that I will have to register any firearm I have/own.”

        The company that issued my umbrella policy has yet to ask for description/serial number of my space gun. Admittedly, if a claim is submitted, I will then have to report the details, including serial number, of the stolen firearm. My policy does not require me to list and value every item in my possession that may be used in a manner to cause harm to others.

    • I have what is called concealed carry insurance. It is not actually insurance, it is a prepaid legal plan. If I’m ever involved in the use of force, and I have to get a lawyer to defend my actions in court, my Ccw Safe policy will pay all my legal expenses

      • “I have what is called concealed carry insurance. It is not actually insurance, it is a prepaid legal plan.”

        That is a good thing to have, but would not qualify as “liability” insurance.

        “Liability” insurance requirement has two goals: defined in such a way zero coverage can be available; “pay” for medical expenses of gunshot recipients (likely regardless of whether the gunshot receiver committed a crime of deadly assault on a gun owner).

  13. I know what I’m about to say is a bit of a false equivalency (that might not be the best way to phrase it but I’m pressed for time) but this kind of shit is exactly what I think of every single time someone says, “Oh the courts will handle it,” or some variance on that theme. No they won’t. The whole system is rigged against us.

    • It’s what happens behind the curtains when enough people stop paying attention. How many people were more absorbed by what Bill Clinton was doing with Lewinsky instead of watching what Hillary and Gore were doing? How many people just simply ignored the situation as all the manufacturing went overseas? Most people never gave it a second thought. Still don’t.

  14. This issue as well as many of the progressive/leftist/socialist etc. Democrat policies make me wonder just what the Democrats are getting out of the program.
    Who is paying off or supporting these politicians and why.
    The average legal gun owner and permit holder tends to be pretty law abiding. Seldom is a legal CCW permit holder arrested for criminal use of a firearm.
    While those who are out committing robberies, car jackings, drug sales/manufacturing/smuggling seldom if ever bother even applying for a permit to carry. Joe Taxpayer is usually too busy working and trying to make a living to be out committing crimes. So why make it ever more difficult for the law abiding while allowing criminals to do as they please with no consequences? Who is being paid off and who benefits from the ass backwards effort in disarmament?

    • “So why make it ever more difficult for the law abiding while allowing criminals to do as they please…”

      1. Disarming the non-criminal public is what socialists/leftists/communists/Dima do; mitigates possibility of rebellion.

      2. Socialists/leftists/communists/Dims are afraid of legal gun owners who go where the “normals” go (all the right/nice places). They do not fear criminals in such places, but the legal gun owner who will just go berserk, and start killing people. Socialists/leftists/communists/Dims care nothing about crime, because socialists/leftists/communists/Dim elites do not live in crime-ridden locals. Being killed in the inner-city is just one of the benefits of living in a socialist/leftist/communist/Dim country.

      3. The elites benefit by feeling good about themselves.

    • I can’t believe you’re even asking this question.
      This has nothing to do with crime, terrorism, or public safety.
      They want to pass laws so bad, that you will actually fight back and shoot them.
      In order to completely oppress the people, the people must first be disarmed
      That’s the only reason they want to disarm the law abiding citizens

  15. @Prndll October 15, 2022 At 13:42
    “That isn’t liability insurance. That’s more a property insurance.”

    My policy includes personal liability for injuries on my property, and misuse of my property by a third party. Includes reimbursement for legal costs to defend myself against personal injury claims that do not prevail at trial. I first must fund my defense, then be reimbursed.

    If I am attacked on the street, and I defend myself, if the attacker tries to sue me for injury, my umbrella policy will reimburse my legal expenses, or cover the medical expenses of the attacker, should the attacker prevail.

    The policy does, indeed, provide extended coverage for medical expenses of another, should they be injured by my vehicle. If I injure someone while fleeing from committing a crime, my liability insurance will not cover injuries to others, in that case.

    Call it what you will, the policy does cover incidents not directly related to property. For instance, if I open a door for you, and you trip and fall at a restaurant, my policy will cover your medical costs. If I lose control of my car, and destroy five new SUVs (at $100,000 each), my policy will cover damages to the owners vehicles, and any medical expenses (up to policy limit).

    Medical insurance extension, and personal liability are not property, in and of themselves. Point is that personal liability insurance is not always a one-off, custom underwriting. The underlying point is don’t assume anything; ask the insurance providers.

      • “I understand. I just don’t think that is what they have in mind.”

        Which may be why no details about qualifying plans are posted. It will be interesting if, by dissembling, NJ, NY,CA are covering up the requirement that liability insurance must cover illegal acts.

  16. The Negro Codes, aka Jim Crow.
    Literacy tests
    Gun permits
    Saturday Night Special bans
    Some things never change, including Democrats.

  17. Murphy and the NJ Dimocrats know damn well this will ultimately get struck down, if not at the Circuit Court level (I think most Circuit Court judges, even the Leftist idiots, will not intentionally p*** off SCOTUS), then at SCOTUS. Justice Thomas will slam dunk this s*** into the weeds. And Murphy and his Government Felon Band don’t care. This “legislative initiative” allows them to virtue signal to all their other Leftist/fascist @$$hole friends (Gov. Newsom and Gretch the Wretch, are you paying attention??), but it arguably give them anywhere from 5 to 15 years to thumb their noses at SCOTUS. It is nothing more than a teenage girl bitch fit, and Murphy deserves to be treated like the hormonal teenage girl he is (albeit a seriously fugly one).

    And they can all pat each other on the back and chortle about how they ‘stuck it to the Man!’. And anyone stupid enough to remain in a state like NY, NI, DE, MA, CA, HI deserves the H.L. Mencken consequences of their f***tardery, “good and hard”.

  18. “particular piece of legislation that we’re going to drop today.”

    The idiot progs are “dropping” something but is not “legislation”


  20. @strych9
    You have an umbrella policy that covers firearms without use of a rider? Who’s your insurer? I need to call them.

    Are you talking about theft protection, or liability protection? Have had the policy for 15yrs; new policies may be different.

    The company, because I am a boomer, is USAA.

    • Theft/loss is what I was asking about.

      I have to carry a rider for the declared value of my collection. Same thing with tools. Otherwise they don’t cover the individual items for theft or for destruction/loss in a flood/fire/tornado etc.

      Which is somewhat understandable since you could claim to have had millions in guns/tools/jewelry/cash/whatever that you didn’t really have, and do so after the fact.

      • USAA did mention that if I had over $2000 in modern firearms, I would need to list them as high value items (separate policy). Or, if I had one “collectable” over $1500. Same with other “high value” items. However, those items were on a different policy for “high value” items, such as jewelry, coins, currency, art work. The Colonel’s valuables went to family, so cancelled that policy.

        • Ah, that makes sense then. I just get the option for the rider where you need a “separate” policy, which I suppose, technically, is what a “rider” is.

  21. “They’re “owed” $570,000 for Social Security and many bank on that being paid. Their retirement is 26% funded by the retiree and 74% government controlled”

    Soc Sec payments are 100% funded by government. Taxes go in, and govt determined amounts come out. Govt can change the outgo as it wishes.

    The secondary fraud of Soc Sec is the current payout scheme: large wage earners, get large Soc Sec checks; low wage earners get low Soc Sec checks. A proper scheme would have one payout level, for every taxpayer; taxes is taxes, welfare should be welfare, protection of the needy.

    Maybe a better scheme is one where people are responsible for their actions, and the incompetent get an incompetent’s reward.

    • Hence “owed” in quotes and the term “average retiree”.

      Extreme outliers are not what is making the system insolvent. Averages and medians are what’s doing that.

      Well, that, and the fact that it’s a ponzi and always was.

      Some of us remember the fact that when this was set up it was calculated to begin paying out just about the timeframe that the average person would die, and therefore fail to collect payment. This was originally set up as .gov’s version of Wimpy, paying you later for what you give today.

  22. @strych9

    Would think that with ~100,000,000 legal gun owners as a mandated market, pricing would not be astronomical.

    According to, there are ~254,000,000 life insurance policies active in the US, making quite the market. Some sort of life insurance is affordable for everyone. (but i am not an actuary)

    Interesting that the “mandatory” element doesn’t lower the risk/payout ratio.

    • The issue being that life insurance is a much larger pool in most cases due to life insurance having a lot of coverage provided by employers, often not even noticed by employees, and that all policies tend to have a stratified risk methodology to calculating a payment.

      Life insurance uses a QALY to calculate premiums. Health insurance used to take into account things like obesity, tobacco use status, jobs prone to serious injury etc.

      Now, life insurance is a market and, as you correctly point out, some level of coverage is affordable to everyone. Health insurance is a bit different. I remember the year the ACA kicked in I could buy Blue Cross insurance for my wife and I at around $400/month for a top-notch policy based on our circumstances.

      Today an inferior policy costs $2600/month if you pay cash and don’t qualify for assistance (we don’t come close).

      Which model do you suppose .gov mandated gun insurance would follow?

      • “Which model do you suppose .gov mandated gun insurance would follow?”

        If such insurance would become available, would expect a similar rate/co-pay scale.

        • Kinda has to, right?

          Life insurance rates can be calculated with acceptable statistical accuracy based on age and health status. That’s why the life insurance agencies are now noticing (and trying to draw attention to) a three-sigma shift in working age folks who should, statistically, be the lowest part of the risk pool.

          How would you do something like that sort of stratification with guns? Doing so by any rational measure, like geography or prior record, would be “discriminatory” due to disparate impact. The only way to stratify risk is by firearm-type and its association with defensive use.

          But that still makes it nearly impossible to rationally stratify risk the way normal insurance does, assigning higher premiums to those who present more risk of creating a payout.

          Essentially the only answer, once this sort of thing is mandated and regulated by anti-gunners is to make all/most the policies prohibitively expensive. And the reason is the same as it is with the ACA, once real risk stratification calculations are removed from the table the only way to cover your bases, statistically, is high premiums on all or most people.

  23. @strych9
    “Ah, that makes sense then. I just get the option for the rider where you need a “separate” policy, which I suppose, technically, is what a “rider” is.”

    Good point. Had never, before now, thought of it that way.

  24. @strych9
    “But that still makes it nearly impossible to rationally stratify risk the way normal insurance does, assigning higher premiums to those who present more risk of creating a payout.”

    ZIP codes?
    Auto insurers have been using that for decades, or more.

      • “Disparate impact.”

        A coupla times after assignments to new military bases, the house was kinda situated between two municipalities. My auto insurance rates were different between the two. After retiring, and making last move, the house is a coupla streets from a different town; same result. Not sure how insurance companies evade “redlining” complaints.

        • Sometimes data matters. Sometimes you FolLoW dA sCieNCe! due to politics.

          It’s like Mounds and Almond Joy but with dangerous racial overtones.

  25. The usual suspects can complain whinge and moan all they bloody well like but this is either an LEGAL act or it is an ILLEGAL acct. So test it through the courts. If it is deemed LEGAL than it is surely legal elsewhere

  26. What’s the point of even having a SCOTUS if select states just completely ignore their rulings with zero consequence. I’m confused, are the Dems in these states more powerful than the highest court in the land? This is a clown world.

    • “What’s the point of even having a SCOTUS if select states just completely ignore their rulings with zero consequence.”

      For full understanding, one needs to look at the history of the constitution, in particular, The Federalist Papers. One “thought” was that the SC be truly co-equal to legislature and executive branches. The other “thought” was that the SC be the weakest branch.

      Fear of the SC becoming the de facto super legislature, with every piece of legislation having to gain SC approval prior to passing/enabling carried the day. The second “thought” emerged as the desired relationship; SC becoming “the weakest branch”.

      The first big test was Marbury v. Madison, where the SC chief justice arrogated the power to declare that which is permissible under the constitution, and that which is not. Without going into detail, keep in mind that the Chief Justice had a political score to settle.

      The next, and revealing challenge to the SC was Andrew Jackson successfully defying an SC ruling, with the statement, “(Chief Justice)…”John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

      Essentially, an unwritten rule evolved that the executive and legislative branches would comply with SC rulings. There is much more to this; worth reading.

  27. I couldn’t care less about the fools that voted these criminals in office, and keep them there with their mindless stupidity. Let them wallow in that snakepit until it swallows them whole. I only hope that the few level headed citizens left that are caught up in the liberal shithole that New Jersey has become will be able to make their escape sooner than later and make their way to a free state.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here