New Jersey has a new gun law: New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher...

Richard94611

New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher capacities. Anyone with a gun with a capacity greater than 10 rounds after that will be guilty of a fourth degree felony, punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence. What do you think about that?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Richard94611 wrote:

New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher capacities. Anyone with a gun with a capacity greater than 10 rounds after that will be guilty of a fourth degree felony, punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence. What do you think about that?

I think it violates the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto law. You cannot criminalize ownership of a weapon or accessory that was perfectly legal when you first acquired it. Banning new purchases might hold up in court. I also think it will do no good whatsoever. When people point to states with strict gun control having fewer murders, this is bullshit. Some do, some don't. Three states with almost the lowest murder rate in the country have very lenient laws. Compare this with California, whose murder rate per capita is much higher than a number of states with far less restrictive laws.

Mike Easterday

You just have to reload more often. Still the same weapon system.

Big dog

Richard94611 wrote:

New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher capacities. Anyone with a gun with a capacity greater than 10 rounds after that will be guilty of a fourth degree felony, punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence. What do you think about that?

Does that include .22 LR's ??

Loki Loc: Georgia

Big dog wrote:

Does that include .22 LR's ??

Yep. As I said before, if this goes to the SCOTUS it will be shot down because of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law. This law would force people to turn in weapons/accessories that were perfectly legal when they were purchased. You cannot force people to turn in property that was legal when it was purchased, and you cannot criminalize that possession. A ban on future purchases might survive a court case. This one won't. Even if a Liberal lower court upholds it, it will never get past SCOTUS.

Big dog

Loki wrote:

Yep. As I said before, if this goes to the SCOTUS ... (show quote)

I hope you're right. Otherwise, trouble is a brewing.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Richard94611 wrote:

New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher capacities. Anyone with a gun with a capacity greater than 10 rounds after that will be guilty of a fourth degree felony, punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence. What do you think about that?

I think it will make 30 round magazines very profitable!

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Richard94611 wrote:

New Jersey has a new gun law prohibiting guns that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds. People have a few months to give up guns with higher capacities. Anyone with a gun with a capacity greater than 10 rounds after that will be guilty of a fourth degree felony, punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence. What do you think about that?

This is also where Atlantic City gives the homeless free shopping carts so they won’t steal them. If they behave for a couple of years, they get a free bicycle. Wouldn't a one-way bus ticket to Miami be cheaper?

Alicia Loc: NYC

amadjuster wrote:

This is also where Atlantic City gives the homeless free shopping carts so they won’t steal them. If they behave for a couple of years, they get a free bicycle. Wouldn't a one-way bus ticket to Miami be cheaper?

*************************
I think that city's solution is quite brilliant. It takes care of the one of the homeless problems and avoids legal intervention. I like the addendum. Gives people a goal that is positive.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Alicia wrote:

*************************
I think that city's solution is quite brilliant. It takes care of the one of the homeless problems and avoids legal intervention. I like the addendum. Gives people a goal that is positive.

They are still all over the streets pushing their free shopping carts full of crap piled high. This is Jimmy Carter's legacy to America.

Alicia Loc: NYC

amadjuster wrote:

They are still all over the streets pushing their free shopping carts full of crap piled high. This is Jimmy Carter's legacy to America.

*****************
it gives them mobility wile still being able t protect their "stuff." What did Carter have to do with it?

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Alicia wrote:

*****************
it gives them mobility wile still being able t protect their "stuff." What did Carter have to do with it?

Carter was President when the courts cut loose the inmates in the mental hospitals and he did nothing about it. These fine folks went on to live successful lives sleeping and defacating in the streets.

Richard94611

You should blame every city council in America in cities where there are homeless people. It is their responsibility to solve local level problems. To blame Carter for something the courts did is misplacing the blame. Remember, the courts are supposed to be independent of the Executive Branch.

amadjuster wrote:

Carter was President when the courts cut loose the inmates in the mental hospitals and he did nothing about it. These fine folks went on to live successful lives sleeping and defacating in the streets.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Richard94611 wrote:

You should blame every city council in America in cities where there are homeless people. It is their responsibility to solve local level problems. To blame Carter for something the courts did is misplacing the blame. Remember, the courts are supposed to be independent of the Executive Branch.

It's called leadership. This is the one thing Jimma lacked. I personally think all of the homeless should be moved to California to Maxine Water's district. The deserve each other.

Richard94611

I stand by my assertion that homelessness is a local problem and should be solved locally. You want the feds to deal with this? That’s contrary to the usual Republican attitude about limited federal government. And the homeless problem wasn’t nearly as severe back then as it is now.

amadjuster wrote:

It's called leadership. This is the one thing Jimma lacked. I personally think all of the homeless should be moved to California to Maxine Water's district. The deserve each other.