NJ Slaps Gun Owners in Face in Right to Carry Case – Again

[shadowrider]

Trenton, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Squandering an opportunity to redeem the Garden State for its long disparagement of the Second Amendment – and in particular, the right to carry – New Jersey’s newly appointed Attorney General has instead slapped gun owners in the face in the latest set of papers in a federal lawsuit brought by ANJRPC and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to overturn New Jersey’s unconstitutional handgun carry laws.

The State’s latest filing maintains its absurd position that the Second Amendment does not exist outside the home, and that it is the State’s responsibility to protect the public from law abiding citizens with firearms.

The papers even reference the Second Amendment as a “privilege.”

Gun owners had speculated that the resignation of the former Attorney General and the recent appointment of a new one by Governor Christie might signal a change in the state’s deeply flawed policy on guns.

Instead, the State’s June 28th filing in a federal appeals court reaffirms the State’s hostility toward the right of honest citizens to defend themselves with firearms outside the home – even though the police owe no duty to protect individual citizens.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/29/nj-slaps-gun-owners-in-face-in-right-to-carry-case-again/

I sure am glad I live in the South.

[Loudly]

1. Does the name Zimmerman ring a bell?

What sane person wants to promote the carrying of guns?

[Meiko]

4. What does Zimmerman

have to do with this or anything for that matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Many carry for good reasons

As I used to remind Shares United regularly, you cannot bash an armed gay.

[NewMoonTherian]

20. The majority of citizens in 40 states, for starters.

Those 40 being the ones that already have shall-issue concealed carry.

I honestly wonder what sane person wants to prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying guns. Carry is for the law-abiding. You screw up, you lose the right. You shoot someone in self defense and get a bad lawyer, you still lose the right, just in case.

[Scootaloo]

29. Question...

When the "Law abiding citizen" decides to say, fuck the law, I need to shoot this asshole, how does him losing his right to carry help the person he just shot?

[GreenStormCloud]

31. You have to balance that innocent killed against the innocents lives saved.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives

[NewMoonTherian]

32. I don't think you have to balance anything.

"People might kill one another with X, so we have to harshly restrict access to X."

If you try to apply this to any other common murder weapon, you'll be laughed out of the room. Guns should not be subject to this ridiculously specious reasoning either.

EDIT: typo

[Scootaloo]

35. Interestingly, what I asked has nothing to do with concealed carry

In fact, every time I ask it, I get NOTHING but citations of concealed carry statistics. I'm thinking this may be a Law of internet discussion, similar to Poe's or Godwin's.

Oh well. Thanks for helping my hypothesis truck further towards full-on scientific theory

[TheWraith]

40. It has everything to do with what you asked.

It's the scientific proof that more harm is prevented than is caused. If a prescription drug saves 10,000 lives, but 15 people have a bad reaction and die from it, that's considered proof that the use of the drug is worth using.

[bongbong]

60. LOL

> It's the scientific proof that more harm is prevented than is caused. I

SO Texas is the proof for the whole country?



The gun-religionists strike again (at logic)!

[GreenStormCloud]

42. You said, "right to carry".

In most states that means concealed carry.

[HALO141]

62. OK, then...

The obvious answer to your (evidently) pointless question is, "very little."


So what?

[NewMoonTherian]

34. It doesn't.

What if someone says "Fuck the law, I need to (stab, chop up, bludgeon, run over, poison, drown, burn, rape, rob) this asshole"? how does throwing that person in prison help the victim? Do you propose we restrict access to every potential implement of violent crime, or is killing someone with a gun ESPECIALLY evil? The law cannot punish someone before they commit a crime, and the government cannot(or at least it should not) ban something based on anecdotes and moral panic. The "threat" presented by legal handgun carriers is not enough to warrant banning the practice.

You have a very powerful, effective, irrefutable argument, and you would be able to use it if legal carriers actually caused a significant amount of crime. Unfortunately, they don't. Your argument hinges on something that does not exist. It's the equivalent of demanding that all buildings be routinely demolished every 50 years due to the risk of poltergeist activity.

[Scootaloo]

37. You don't even know what "my argument" is

You assume that I want guns banned or something. I don't.

I'm asking a question about this line of your post;

Carry is for the law-abiding. You screw up, you lose the right.

By definition, of course, everyone is law-abiding up until the point they no longer are, right? So it's already sort of a false distinction; a "law abiding" gun owner can commit a crime, no problem; they're still someone who legally obtained and carried that weapon, correct?

And then you follow up in this post, stating that "legal carriers" don't cause a significant amount of crime. I suppose if you want to split hairs really, really finely and make the argument that in a strictly technical sense, the rights are revoked upon the commission of a crime, you have an argument. But strictly-technical-hair-splitty arguments like that come off as special pleading.

One fourth of robberies in the US involve guns. over two-thirds of murders in the US are committed with guns. You want to tell me that every single gun in the hands of the people committing those acts was stolen? or smuggled, or otherwise not in their hands legally? Maybe conjured by some black sorcery? I'm sure some portion of them were, sure (well, except the sorcery bit). But given that it's not exactly difficult to legally buy a gun, I'm certain a pretty large portion of those crimes are, in fact, committed by people who have legal rights to that gun.

I think this is why you guys only ever respond with CCW statistics when this is brought up; it lets you narrow the field of "gun owners" down to a much smaller group who undergo evaluation and such to gain their permits.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Murder is very rarely done as a first offense.

The typical murderer has already had three felony convictions. (Sorry, I don't remember where I found that study. It was done in New York and covered a period of almost 100 years of records of convictions.) Legal gun owners rarely misuse their guns. Some will, but it is rare.

I have to go to work now. I will try to come back with some backing for my statement. I won't limit it to CC this time.

[NewMoonTherian]

44. But we were specifically discussing carry.

I replied to Loudly's post about why people promote the carrying of guns. If you want to switch gears and discuss gun ownership as a whole, I'm up for that. However, all my posts above were meant to specifically deal with the legal carrying of guns in public.

I apologize if I misconstrued your previous post. You said:

"When the "Law abiding citizen" decides to say, fuck the law, I need to shoot this asshole, how does him losing his right to carry help the person he just shot?"

The law abiding citizens I was referring to(in the post you replied to) were legal handgun carriers. Were you referring to gun owners in general? Were you referring to any person who hasn't committed a disqualifying offense? From that post, I gathered that you were decrying the practice of carrying handguns in public. Help me understand what your position is, and what your intent was in replying to my earlier post. I think we're somehow trying to have two different conversations, and it's getting us all cross-threaded.

[Scootaloo]

45. I think we might be having different conversations too

My position, with regards to guns, ownership, various types of carry law, etc is simple; "I don't care." It's a tool, big whup.

My intent however, is that I think "gun culture" is fucking ridiculous. One of the major reasons for this is the huge reliance on the "no true scotsman" fallacy in gul culture. That is, if a Zimmerman or a Rodriguez or whoever, someone legally entitled to own and carry a firearm decides to kill someone, suddenly they don't count. They're not real gun owners, they were secretly "the bad guys" all along.

When you throw out the phrase "law-abiding citizen", it sends up a code-phrase alert for me, sort of like when the term "thug" is used in these discussions (thankfully that one doesn't seem to get as much use on DU.) It sends the message that there's a clear, definite, and absolute line between "law abiding gun owner" and "criminal," and refuses to acknowledge that yes, there is overlap.

After all, those guns used in crimes can't all be stolen, right? And if they are, well, that would imply that the supposedly "responsible gun owners" are really sloppy with securing their weaponry.

So yeah. You're talking about carry concealed (though you use the term "carry" without "concealed," which throws me) and i'm talking about this silly "doesn't count!" trend in "gun culture" that you seem to be promulgating.

[NewMoonTherian]

46. I can see why you're frustrated!

I understand better now. It was never my intent to suggest that cases like Zimmerman's or Loughner's don't count. Those ARE instances of law-abiding citizens committing violent crimes(well, I'm still reserving judgment on Zimmerman, but that's for another thread entirely).

My contention is that those cases, and others where a law-abiding gun owner BECOMES a criminal by harming someone, are too rare to legitimately influence policy regarding guns.

I agree with you. The argument you described would be obnoxious and infuriating, and would make pro-gunners look like absolute fools. I don't think I've ever seen anyone make that assertion before. I hope I'd have called them on it if I had.

EDIT: I've been adjusting my language from "concealed carry" to just "carry" or "handgun carry" because I've realized how many states now recognize the right to open carry(my own home state of Oklahoma being the newest). I know that CC is the more recognized term, but I didn't want someone to somehow turn my use of CC against me in some kind of "gotcha!" word game. Maybe I'll go back to using it, for the sake of being better understood.

[Scootaloo]

47. I find it hard to believe you've never seen it

I'm absolutely certain you have. Maybe it just doesn't "register," though I've seen that from "insiders" on other contentious issues.

Like I said, it sends up the "code-word" alarm for me. You'd think my now, I'd avoid the Gungeon and the Anti-Arab... uh, I mean the Israel / Palestine forum because of all the loud signalling going on, bu, meh, I get bored

[NewMoonTherian]

48. I considered that possibility too.

Maybe if you see a post on here where someone throws it out, shoot me a link via PM. I'm all about correcting my blind spots.

I don't like to use the "law-abiding" term, just because it feels like an overused buzzword. It's just the clearest way to express what I'm trying to express. I think it's sometimes worthwhile to note that a person has been vetted and determined to have a squeaky-clean record. I recognize that that doesn't mean a person will never commit a crime in the future, but in the absence of reliable ESP techniques, it's best information we have to go on.

I love the contention here in the Gungeon! No other gun forums have as lively a policy debate going on, and no anti-gun groups have forums that allow for any kind of dissent(except one Facebook group I've become rather fond of).

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Put that strawman back in the barn, no one is buying it.

Nobody here claims there is zero overlap. Those are your words, not ours. We do claim, and prove, that it is so rare for a law-abiding gun owner to go bad that it is statistically insignifigant.

In an earlier post you used the phrase: "...every body is law-abiding until they aren't." You seem to be implying that everyone will become a violent criminal at some point in their lives. Surely you realize that most folks will be basically law-abiding their entire lives. Certainly a career criminal does have a point in his life when he commits his first violent crime. Usually that point is in his early teen years. People are remarkable consistent in the way they live their lives. You are extremely unlikely to suddenly become a Republican. A normal decent person is extremely unlikely to suddenly wake up deciding to become an armed robber.

A very small cadre of criminals is responsible for almost all of the violent crime in the nation. The typiical armed robber is also a serial armed robber. He regularly holds up C-stores before graduating to banks or getting caught. The typical mugger attacks dozens of people per year. The burglar does home after home until stopped. They will almost always get caught early in life and have a record of criminal convictions. That "first crime" and first conviction comes pretty early. From then on they fail the NICS check and have to get their guns illegally.

Yes, those guns used in crime can all be stolen, although many of them are via straw purchase. The same gun can be used in crime after crime as they rarely have to fire the gun. The gun can be used for years, sold to other criminals, etc.

The FBI statistic have 127,130 armed robberies using a gun as the weapon for 2010. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl21.xls Although that sound like a lot, remember that a separate gun isn't needed for each gun armed robbery. One criminal with one gun can easily account for multiple armed robberies in one year. If he does just one robbery a month, which I cosider to be a low figure, then you would need only about 10,000 stolen guns per year to keep the criminals supplied. The number of guns stolen per year is declining, but the most recent is 138035 in 2001, easily enough to supply a separate gun per holdup. Since there are about 300 million guns in the U.S. we are talking about one gun out of over 2,000 getting stolen which is a tiny fraction of the guns available. It shows that most legal gun owners are very responsible in the way they store their guns.

We don't say that the occasional Rodriquez doesn't happen. My stats that I post from Texas ADMIT that they do happen. Please stop accusing us of saying things that we don't say. I do prove that they are extremely rare, too rare to be used as a basis for restrictive laws.

[Euromutt]

63. I can answer one of your questions (and in so doing, answer another)

After all, those guns used in crimes can't all be stolen, right?

Right. In fact, comparatively few guns used in crimes are stolen (though note that theft can also occur from distributors and dealers, not just from private citizens). According to the ATF, the two primary sources of guns "diverted" into the criminal circuit are crooked FFLs and straw purchasing; note that both routes are means to get around the problem of the end user not being able to legally acquire a firearm.

And I don't think I've ever heard or read anyone claiming that Zimmerman or a Stawicki "doesn't count," but I think it can be plausibly argued that they aren't representative of gun owners, or indeed CCW permit holders, in general. If they were, gun crime statistics would be a damn sight higher than they are.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. It doesn't.

There is an old Scottish saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Everyone needs to be respected. We need to be expected to do the right thing; to be a help to others and to be a good example. The effects on the human spirit of restrictions and control both angers the public in general and leans toward absolving the guilty.

[TPaine7]

52. "...how does him losing his right to carry help the person he just shot?"

It doesn't.

Now a question for you:

When a cop commits murder or some other crime under color of law, how does the cop losing the badge (in the portion of cases where that actually happens) help the murder or crime victim?

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Ammoland.

Paradise on earth.

[PavePusher]

12. If you can find an equivalent article via Huff'n'Puff or MSNBC, please post it.

In the meantime, care to address the actual content?

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. My, my,

we have a new classroom monitor today.

[PavePusher]

21. Nope, just addressing your objections.

So, got any actual debate on the topic of the article?

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. Objections?

Where do you see that?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

[Meiko]

3. It seems to me

that the people of NJ as a whole are not really interested in concealed carry. If they were they would do something about it. Why would a Republican Governor appoint an anti-gun attorney general? If the people really want better gun control laws and concealed carry it may be time to call the NRA and get them to apply some political pressure. Perhaps reminding the Governor that he can be voted out of office as easily as he was voted in might be helpful.

If a majority of residents don't mind being manhandled by government then let them have at it.

[PavePusher]

7. The point of a representative republic...

is to protect the rights of the minority, and prevent a 'tyranny of the majority'.

Would you be O.K. with a state gutting the Thirteenth or Twenty-sixth Amendments?

Edit: It seems it's in the hands of the SAF. Good. They are far better it this then the NRA.

[Meiko]

23. I agree with you

My point is that the people in NJ should be able to use the system that is in place to change or make law without interference from an overzealous attorney general. Forgive me but what is SAF? I am not familiar with this one. I used the the NRA because it was convenient. There are obviously many ways to bring about change.

[PavePusher]

54. SAF = Second Amendment Foundation

They are the folks running most of the effective pro-2A legal action, their primary lawyer is Alan Gura and his small law firm.

The damn NRA has repreatedly tried to take credit for their/his efforts.

[Meiko]

57. Thank you

I'll take a look at them. You learn something new every day.

[bongbong]

9. NRA groupies

> If the people really want better gun control laws



"Better gun control laws" to a gun religionist mean "NO gun control laws! Guns Guns Guns!!!"

The gun-religionists on DU usually chime as a group that "nobody likes the NRA". It looks like that isn't true of all the gun-religionists on DU.

The NRA is a GOP lobbying organization according to DU gun-lovers. I wonder why ANY "Democrat" would think otherwise?

[Meiko]

19. What I said

Was allow the people of NJ to decide what they want, no more, no less. If the people want concealed carry and fewer gun laws then the NRA has the tools and the organizational skills available to make things happen. I don't have a breakdown of the state of NJ, it could be the majority of people are Republicans or maybe they are Democrats who support the 2A.

I do not support the NRA, I have not been a member for many years. That does not mean that I can't see that their organization is useful to some people or groups. You cannot deny that they have been very effective in getting legislation passed.

[bongbong]

39. LOL

> You cannot deny that they have been very effective in getting legislation passed.

The Koch Sucker Brothers are too, but you don't see too many DU-ers holding them up as exemplars.

[Meiko]

53. I am not really holding

them up. Just pointing out that they are very good at whatt they do and that is a fact.

[Meiko]

58. I'm sorry

I am not familiar with the exploits of the people you listed.

[TheWraith]

41. 55% of all registered Democrats approve of the NRA.

And that's not counting people like most of us here who don't, but still own guns. On the whole, about between two thirds and three quarters of Democrats approve of laws like concealed carry which are generally considered "pro gun."

You need to get used to the fact that you're in the extreme minority about your views on guns, even within the Democratic Party.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. And those that flossed regularly had 57% less chance of gum disease.

The numbers sound like a 3:00am infomercial.

[NewMoonTherian]

55. I'm confused.

It's a majority opinion. TheWraith didn't make it up. He can't change the number to sound less... like a 3:00 am infomercial? Wait. What does that even mean?

[sarisataka]

5. Um.... What's wrong with this picture?

it is the State’s responsibility to protect the public from law abiding citizens with firearms

but...

even though the police owe no duty to protect individual citizens

The State has a duty to protect you from those who obey the law but not from those who break the law

[bongbong]

10. D'OH!

> The State has a duty to protect you from those who obey the law but not from those who break the law

If you break the laws concerning guns, you're a lawbreaker! Should be simple to understand, even for gun-religionists.

[PavePusher]

11. Obviously not simple enough for you... n/t

[sarisataka]

13. According to the State of NJ

it is the State’s responsibility to protect the public from law abiding citizens with firearms

So NJ believes protection is needed. Once you break a gun law you are home free since the police do not have a resposibility to protect individuals.

NJ is arguing they have to protect you from those who have not broken the law. Pretty simple

[Meiko]

24. That's not what it says

maybe you had better read it again, this time without the anti-gun bias.

[Mr Rogers]

6. Zimmerman?

We need protection from White-Hispanic Americans like Zimmerman,

[PavePusher]

8. What about Z? n/t

[Loudly]

14. Just the poster boy for why

guns and ammo don't belong in the hands of the public.

That's all.

[permatex]

16. That's your opinion and your entitled to it

however, President Obama, The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans disagree with you. You, my friend, are in the minority.
I have no problem with the laws that are already there, they just need to be enforced.

[PavePusher]

22. Since there has been one car crash today....

obviously we need to take cars and fuel out of the hands of Citizens.

[Meiko]

26. That's it?

that's all you got?

[NewMoonTherian]

56. And, apparently...

the poster boy for the complete impotence of the anti-gun lobby. You have no statistical or scientific support for your position, so you beat a handful of anecdotal examples for all they're worth. Meanwhile, the big anti-gun backlash that was supposed to result has never shown up. You couldn't even stop open carry from passing in Oklahoma, a state that swatted it down five or six years in a row before now. Maybe this IS the backlash. Maybe, instead of causing a slide back into Draconian restriction, it's manifesting by just delaying positive change. I'd love to see what pro-gunners would be capable of in the absence of your couple of poster boys. Maybe we could've gotten rid of the insipid machine gun registry, or even the 4th-amendment nightmare that is the NFA.

[Meiko]

25. Why does Zimmerman

always have to be dragged into any conversation about gun rights. His case does not fit every conceivable situation. Good grief.

[Hoyt]

17. Good to see not everyone in NJ is as stupid as Christie.

Another post from Ammoland -- home of bigots, militia types and worse.

[Meiko]

27. You don't like

militias? Are you saying the information that was provided via the link to ammoland is incorrect?

[Hoyt]

30. I'm sure there is some correct info on Stormfront, KKK's web site, Ayran Nation, etc. But not much.

I would not suggest hanging out there, Free Republic, NRA or most right wing web sites, or using a link from such crud.

[Meiko]

33. I wouldn't either

but sometimes you don't have a choice, you have to get down in the mud once in awhile.
I just went over to ammoland, first time ever. It looks like a pretty nice site. Well laid out, informative...not scummy at all. But it is considered a right wing site so it is verboten.

[villager]

28. You can always count on "Ammoland" for "fair and balanced" interpretation of gun issues!

n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

36. I'm glad you live in the South, too. I lived in Joisey for...

15 years and we had enough of our own entertainment.

Joisey's largest newspaper has these two in its top five most popular stories...

2. Police: Teaneck man pulled gun on neighbor for farting. Daniel Collins, 72, was arrested after a neighbor's fart allegedly drove Collins to threaten the neighbor with a gun, police said.

5. Two people shot, killed in Newark. A 42-year-old East Orange woman was shot and killed outside of a car in Newark’s South Ward, and four hours later, an unidentified man was gunned down on Brookdale Avenue in the Lower Vailsburg section of the West Ward, according to law enforcement officials

Two outta five are about guns. What are the odds...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/most_popular_stories_on_njcom_121.html

[Callisto32]

51. Quite good, probably.

See, rare things make headlines......dog bites man...not so much.

[PavePusher]

59. Crime sells.

Always has, allways will.