Category: RKBA

Editorial calling for magazine ban misses tons of points

The day I see a pro-gun editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times will likely be the day that sites like this aren’t needed anymore. It’ll mean that we’ve so completely and totally won the gun war that gun control will be relegated to the dustbin of history; a museum-piece idea dead and gone, sitting on a shelf like eugenics and phrenology.

But that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Today, they’re pushing for state-wide gun control. In particular, they want a magazine ban restricting people to just 10 rounds.

A new gun threat is painting a larger target on everyone’s backs. Lawmakers should figure out how to curb it.

As Frank Main, Tom Schuba and Stephanie Zimmermann of the Sun-Times and Chip Mitchell of WBEZ reported in Sunday’s Sun-Times, extended-capacity magazines — which hold 10 or more bullets and can be used with handguns as well as rifles — have become more common despite bans in some places.

Moreover, a surging number of guns with illegal attachments called “switches” on the street, which convert guns from semi-automatic to automatic weapons, are being seized by the police department, according to the investigation.

A shooter with a semi-automatic gun needs to squeeze the trigger every time a shot is fired. A shooter with an automatic gun needs only to squeeze and hold the trigger, and the gun will continue to fire, causing far more damage.

When weapons with high-capacity magazines are converted to automatic and are easily obtainable, young people who carry guns will want them. But we can’t afford to have these murderous weapons even further embedded into the gun culture.

When combined with illegal devices that convert guns into fully automatic firearms, the large magazines can spread almost unimaginable devastation and death in a matter of moments.

Twelve states ban high-capacity magazines. Illinois should join them.

That’s right. Illinois needs a magazine ban because an illegal device that cannot be possessed lawfully anywhere in the nation is a thing.

Yet what tickles me the most is how little they’ve thought this through.

Sure, such magazines are restricted in many areas of Illinois, but the argument is that criminals just go to where they’re legal and buy them, so by restricting them statewide, that can’t happen.

Really?

This is the same city notorious for blaming Indiana for the guns in criminal hands, and they think somehow these folks who get guns from another state won’t be able to get magazines?

Hell, they’ll get them easier.

In Indiana, there are still federal requirements for the sale of firearms from a licensed dealer. Yet criminals commit a crime in order to obtain these guns so they can sell them to Chicago criminals.

Magazines have no such checks or requirements. Anyone can stroll into a gun store and buy a higher-capacity magazine in any state without even having to show an ID.

If federal regulations and Illinois state law can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how does the Chicago Sun-Times think a magazine ban in the state will? Especially when all the rules on the planet aren’t keeping these people from getting full-auto switches.

And yes, magazines can be 3D printed, which makes a ban even more pointless.

But do you want to know who will get hosed over by a magazine ban? The law-abiding citizens who might well need more ammo capacity to combat the heavily armed criminals who will still get these magazines, switches, guns, and literally anything else they want.

Newspaper editorials are often used to advocate for various laws. However, this is a prime example of how those who sit on those editorial boards often don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

Crap For Brains Quote O’ the Day
Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling……
“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.

Fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry stumbles as constitutional concerns mount

A fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry in New Jersey hit a snag Thursday when Assembly leaders yanked it from a scheduled vote, conceding its broad restrictions could fold under constitutional scrutiny.

The canceled vote came the same day a Senate panel approved the bill along party lines — and with about 15 amendments that appear to be aimed at appeasing critics who have vowed to fight any new law in court. The bill, introduced two weeks ago, has already been approved along party lines by three Assembly committees.

Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden), one of the bill’s sponsors and the majority leader in the Assembly, said legislators plan to revise language in the bill to ensure “it’s directly in line with our legislative intent.”

“That may help constitutional arguments at the end of the day,” Greenwald said. “There’s a focus on making sure that it’s not too broad, not too vague, and that it withstands a challenge.”

Greenwald said lawmakers still aim to pass the bill by the end of November.

“Obviously, the day that the governor signs it, there’s going to be legal challenges — those against it have already made that clear,” said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), another bill sponsor. “So we’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.”

Legislators say they drafted the bill to counter the uptick in gun usage they anticipate after about 300,000 gun owners applied for concealed carry permits in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that affirmed a constitutional right to carry. In that ruling, the nation’s highest court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to prove a reason why they need to carry a concealed gun, prompting New Jersey to remove its similar “justifiable need” requirement.

New Jersey’s bill would create new hurdles for gun owners seeking carry permits and carve out 25 categories of sensitive places where guns are prohibited, which range from beaches to bars to parks.

But gun rights advocates have singled out various provisions of the bill they find problematic — and grounds for a court challenge. A federal judge in New York last week temporarily halted a similar ban there on guns in sensitive places, citing constitutional concerns.

Some of the amendments made to New Jersey’s bill since its introduction have addressed critics’ concerns. After gun supporters complained about one provision that would allow the state’s 565 municipalities to define their own sensitive places where guns would be banned, lawmakers amended the bill to remove it.

Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, on Wednesday sounded the alarm about other language in the bill referring to “weapons.” Such vague wording could refer to any everyday tool, including mops, kitchen cutlery, and knitting needles, the association warned in an alert to members.

Greenwald on Thursday conceded the weapons verbiage was one tweak legislators would make before rescheduling the bill for a full Assembly vote.

Earlier in the day, during the Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee, Sen. Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, agreed some unclear language in the bill needs further consideration.

The committee made 15 amendments to the bill. Two amendments would remove requirements that someone with a carry permit stopped by police produce the gun for inspection and show proof of liability insurance. Two more would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry a handgun in sensitive places where the public can’t take them.

Still, supporters and critics spent nearly three hours debating the bill Thursday, with some especially testy exchanges between the panel’s Democratic members and Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester), whose political campaign centered on Second Amendment rights.

“If I were to sit here and list all the problems with this bill, we’d be here until sometime next week,” Durr told the panel.

Durr especially objected to the increased fees proposed in the legislation, complaining they would “make it impossible for a person of modest means to protect him- or herself.”

He questioned the state’s ongoing effort to reduce its prison population while tightening gun control at the same time.

“You were making room (in prison) for all the responsible but unlucky gun owners who are going to unintentionally violate this bill,” he said.

Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling.

“I’m a lawyer,” Gill told Durr.

He responded, “I’ve seen many lawyers get things wrong.”

Gill retorted: “I’ve seen legislators get them wrong too.”

After almost three hours of testimony, the panel advanced the bill.

“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.