Ban, one state at a time...

[EE_]

NJ Shotgun Ban! Ammo Ban! Magazine Grabs! – Gun Owners Mobilize Now!
Published on Sunday, February 10, 2013

UPCOMING ASSEMBLY BILLS, BAN POPULAR SHOTGUNS, MOST RIFLE AMMUNITION, REDUCE MAGAZINE, CAPACITY TO TEN ROUNDS, AND MORE…


Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs
Trenton, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Keep flooding legislators with calls, faxes, and emails And then come pack the Committee hearing room on Wednesday!

This is the worst threat to NJ gun rights in history Your efforts matter most right now!

Buses to Trenton on Wednesday are being planned, But you must register immediately so Arrangements can be finalized.

As reported in our last alert, the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on a package of 24 gun bills on Wednesday, February 13 beginning at 10 a.m. in the State House Annex, Committee Room 11, 4th Floor, Trenton, NJ (directions here).

The worst of these bills have the effect of banning all rifle-barreled shotguns, numerous rifles and handguns, most rifle ammunition, and magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Ammunition sales would be severely restricted, logged and reported to the State Police, and internet and catalog sales would be banned.

Unaccountable health practitioners (including nurses, social workers, and marriage counselors!) would be turned into spies with the power to effectively suspend Second Amendment rights and have firearms seized. And the exercise of the Constitutional right to own firearms would be conditioned on proof of having firearms safety training. And that’s just the beginning (see detailed bill analysis here).

It is imperative that gun owners and sportsmen flood the Committee Members with phone calls, faxes, and emails between now and Wednesday morning voicing their opposition to these bills (see legislator contact information below). If you’ve already sent an email, please go the distance and make the extra effort to also send in faxes and make phone calls to each member of the Committee, and please do so on both Monday and Tuesday of this week.The extraordinary challenge we are facing needs an extraordinary response from gun owners and sportsmen.

Then, we need to pack the committee room on Wednesday with a show of unity and strength to make sure that legislators who won’t see the light will definitely feel the heat.Everyone will not get to testify, and this will not be a rally, but we need to all be there in a courteous and respectful show of strength. Bus transportation is being planned and coordinated in a joint effort between ANJRPC and NJ2AS. Click here for information and to register – we need to know if you’re coming ASAP so we can finalize arrangements.

On Monday and Tuesday, please call, fax, and email every member of the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee (listed below). Tell them to vote no on these extreme gun and ammunition bans and other new anti-gun measures, and urge them to instead support meaningful measures to address school safety and the mental health system. Tell them that their proposals will not prevent another tragedy, because criminals and madmen who already ignore New Jersey’s thousands of gun laws will not follow another new law.

NOTE: We have received conflicting information over the weekend as to whether anti-gun legislation will be considered by the full Assembly on Thursday, February 14.Accordingly, at this time we are only targeting the committee hearing on Wednesday, February 13th for attendance by gun owners.

Click here for detailed analysis of each of the 24 bills being heard on Wednesday.



Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/nj-shotgun-ban-ammo-ban-magazine-grabs-gun-owners-mobilize-now/#ixzz2KgwKFgA3

[EE_]

That makes 5 states now, where they are coming for your guns, CA, NY, CT, NJ, MO

Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 14, 2013, 9:52 AM

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Dana Loesch Radio reported on the new legislation being pushed by Missouri Democrats:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/?ModPagespeed=noscript

[Tumbleweed]

SOB's

[EE_]

add MA, CO and PA to the list

[Mouse]

No chance in hell of that bill getting any traction in MO. Everyone has an "assault rifle", except for the demotards in St. louis and KC.

[madfranks]

From Colorado:

Two gun bills pass out of state House committee (http://www.gazette.com/articles/house-150957-pass-bills.html)

DENVER • After more than eight hours of public testimony Tuesday, Democrats passed out of committee two gun-control measures that would create universal background checks and limit high-capacity magazines to 15 rounds.

The bills were the first to be heard of sweeping gun regulations proposed by Democrats this year in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting, and they will now head to the House Appropriations Committee and the House floor, respectively.

Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, authored both bills and defended the measures against an onslaught of criticism from gun rights advocates who filled the committee chambers at the Capitol wearing stickers saying “I vote pro-gun.”

Universal Background Checks

Under current law, buyers of firearms at certified dealers or gun shows must pass a background check performed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

There is no background check performed, however, when a firearm is sold or transferred between individuals. But House Bill 229 would change that.

“The private sale loophole is just a way for criminals to skirt around our current background check and it contributes to the murder of 34 Americans every single day,” Fields said. “Background checks are the only systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill and other abusers from buying firearms.”

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, told Fields the bill would have done nothing to prevent the Aurora shooting in her district and will do little for public safety.

“What we’re doing is imposing a higher restraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms,” said Gardner, who was one of four votes against both bills.

Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, voted in favor of the bills and said no constitutional rights are absolute and all are subject to reasonable restraint on things such as time and place in the interest of public safety.

“The balancing that we have to do to protect our amendment rights while promoting our public safety rights is the challenging task we have as representatives,” Lee said. “What we need to do is prevent people who want to do us violence from obtaining weapons.”

Ronald Sloan, director of the CBI, spoke in favor of the bill.

A fiscal analysis estimates the additional background checks would require 25 additional staff members at CBI and would cost $1.6 million in 2013.

The proposed bill allows for the transfer of firearms between immediate family members. It would be a misdemeanor to violate the law.

Private sellers would go to licensed gun dealers and pay $10 to have the required background check performed.

“This bill would place an unjust burden on law abiding citizens who may live miles, two hours, from the nearest gun dealer where they would have to go and register or go through and do a background check procedure,” said Daniel Carey, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. He said a similar requirement in California had failed to increase public safety.

High capacity magazines

Fields’ second bill bans magazines that hold more than 15 bullets, but provides a grandfather clause to allow current owners to keep their high-capacity magazines.

“The motivation behind this bill is based on what happened in Aurora on July 20,” Fields said. “A shooter killed 12 people and he injured 58 … in 90 seconds he was able to do that kind of damage.”

The family of victims from the Columbine and Aurora massacres and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut testified in favor the bill, talking about how loved ones could have survived if the shooter had to take time to reload.

A representative from Magpul, a manufacturing company based in Colorado that produces high-capacity magazines for both domestic and foreign militaries, testified that the multi-million dollar company that employs 200 people would have to move out of the state if the bill is passed.

About the Bills

HB229: Requires background checks for the sale or transfer of a firearm between two individuals, and makes violation of the law a misdemeanor, as well as, holding the seller liable for damages if the gun is misused.

Authors: Representatives Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora; Beth McCann, D-Denver; and Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora

Action: Passed House Judiciary Committee 7-4

Next Step: House Appropriations Committee

HB224: Bans the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 bullets or 8 shotgun shells, requiring manufacturers to date-stamp and serial number newly produced magazines. Current owners are grandfathered in and a violation is a misdemeanor.

Authors: Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora; Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton

Action: Passed House Judiciary Committee 7-4

Next Step: House floor

[EE_]

A friend of mine is going to print a pack with this info to hand out at two gun shows this weekend for people that don't know. Might wake a few people up if they might consider registering, or complying with any new laws.
I sent him a copy with color highlights and large bold print to make a flyer


Police have no responsibility to protect individuals

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

[Awoke]

You guys, even on the non-effected States, had better get your shit together and start standing up to this, or you're going to be like Canada before your kids become parents.
Protect your 2A while you still can.

[Twisted Titan]

Its no need to stand up anymore

The die has been cast.

These pricks are going to push through the most restrictive legislation they can get away with just shy of stoking a insurrection.

The only recourse you have left is non complience.

Im will keep buying ammo right up till the point i cant afford it or find it.

Once i have it.....im not giving it up because i have been charged by my creator with protecting my loved ones from evil and deranged people.

I will not be derilect in that duty.

Whoever dont like it can kiss my 230 grain @$$.

[gunDriller]

That makes 5 states now, where they are coming for your guns, CA, NY, CT, NJ, MO

CA, NY, & CT are all Joo-heavy states.

not sure about NJ & MO.