Christie vetoes gun ban bills

Bryan Miller is the leader of "Cease Fire NJ". An extreme anti-gun organization.

Looks like he will make a run for pres.

Read my predictions in last weeks Christie-Bashing thread. Glad to see them come true.


Willie


.

Not voting for Christie for any national office. I'm glad Christie spared the residents of NJ from even more stupid gun laws but Christie has supported bans in the past and supports NJ's existing ridiculous gun laws. He is no friend to the Second Amendment. If he is the best the GOP can offer in 2016 then they are already lost.

Not voting for Christie for any national office. I'm glad Christie spared the residents of NJ from even more stupid gun laws but Christie has supported bans in the past and supports NJ's existing ridiculous gun laws. He is no friend to the Second Amendment. If he is the best the GOP can offer in 2016 then they are already lost.

Click to expand...

I am not a Christie fan, so I was surprised by his vetoes. I had frankly assumed he may well switch parties and run as a Democrat in the presidential primary, but these vetoes suggest that will not be the case.

The primary is our opportunity to make our choice, but at the end of the day, I will be supporting whatever candidate is the least likely to destroy our high court. As I posted earlier, both Scalia and Kennedy will be 80, Ginsburg will be 84 assuming she makes it till then. She's had some health issues. Heller was 5/4, folks.

Christie is OK with assault weapons bans, licenses to own firearms or purchase ammunition, limiting JHP ammo, magazine capacity bans, removal of 2A rights without due process, etc. If you are looking to him for Justice nominations that will help the Heller decision, you might as well wish for a unicorn ride while you are at it.

Better to leave those choices to Hillary? He at least will have pressure from his caucus as well as the electorate to make better choices than that. She or whomever we get on that side will have free reign politically.

He will want the same as any other first term president, a second term. He can't spit in the face of the folks that elect him with a liberal appointment in his first term and expect it won't hurt him. The opposition will have no such concern.

Lets just hope, pray and work that he will not be our only choice.

This guy is not going to nominate pro-Second Amendment Justices to the Supreme Court. Neither will Hillary. If those are the choices, the Second Amendment will lose no matter what choice you make.

If you are looking to him for Justice nominations that will help the Heller decision, you might as well wish for a unicorn ride while you are at it.

Click to expand...

Of course not. However, justices that might be under consideration by any republican would still be scrutinized on a number of other issues, such as the numerous remaining challenges to obamacare currently working their way up the chain, that will require original-intent appointments to meet their objectives in getting that mess overturned. They are far more likely to be friendly to RKBA cases.

And for the record, I agree with you on Christie with regard to his positions. They mirror Romney's gun control views, which I believe is one of the primary reasons 3.6 million voters in the republican base failed to show up for him. I think that is why their was this degree of surprise over these vetoes, which shows he may be realizing the importance of at least attempting to score points with the base that failed to show for Romney.

My worry with someone like Christie actually winning is this: does anyone really think we would have avoided a renewal of AWB had Romney won? A least against Obama, we had a unified opposition on any new RKBA curtailments. That would not have been the case had a RINO like Romney proposed a reinstatement post Newtown, which I suspect he would have done.

More than any election I can recall, getting this right in the primary is critical.

My point is that arguing which anti-Second Amendment candidate is more likely to accidentally give us a slightly more positive decision is a losing game. If we allow the nominees to be anti-Second Amendment candidates, we will eventually lose regardless of which party wins.

In my opinion, the only reason that New Jersey gun owners did not get burdened with more ridiculous laws was because their Governor has political aspirations in 2016 and knows his past record on guns is troublesome for those aspirations. However, he can also see that McCain and Romney; both of whom pushed for gun control in their past (though nowhere near on the same scale) managed to win their primaries by cozying up to the NRA during the primary. So Christie believes he can still win the primary - and why wouldn't he when we have people who profess to believe in the Second Amendment trying to sell the "We must get behind Christie!" line before he has even announced as a candidate?

Christie is anti-Second Amendment. Clinton is anti-Second Amendment. If we allow those two to be the nominees, we are playing a losing game we cannot win. So forgive me if I disagree with the mentality that says we should all agree to support an anti-Second Amendment candidate before he has even announced just because of his party affiliation. I think that is an incredibly destructive strategy. So much so that I want to make it crystal clear to all politicians that an anti-Second Amendment stance is a deal killer regardless of your party affiliation.

Christie is an anti, just like our current president. We have to remember the other elections in 2014 as well. That's the ONLY thing that helped our rights this past year: the house and senate, as well as who chairs certain committees. That's at LEAST as important as who is president.

He surprised me starting from the time he handled hurricane Sandy to now. I don't usually see that much courage and leadership in a politician (sadly.)

New Jersey is a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. As far as gun regulations are concerned New Jersey like New York City has successfully implemented thorough and rigid gun control and any attempt to add more laws is beating a dead horse.

I am sick and disgusted with opportunist politians that have attempted to use recent tragedies to further their political carreers by spreading ignorance and fear in states that already have tough gun laws by passing more laws, which is really pointless in such states, that cause pain, suffering, loss of rights, revenue, freedom, and reputation to law abiding taxpaying gun owners who try so hard to abide by these tough laws placed before them.

I don't agree with all of his views but I find it difficult to doubt his integrety.

Bartholomew Roberts said:

This guy is not going to nominate pro-Second Amendment Justices to the Supreme Court. Neither will Hillary. If those are the choices, the Second Amendment will lose no matter what choice you make.

Click to expand...

That is a very valid point.

Yay now people can vote for this Rino and claim that he isn't really anti-gun. Just like they did with Romney and Obama!

I'm thrilled that Christie vetoed these bills - they would have been a nightmare for NJ firearms owners, particularly Sweeney's ID card bill.

That being said, I've been saying for some time that if Christie did sign them, it would have signalled the end of his presidential aspirations, at least as a Republican.

Firearms ownership in NJ can be pretty challenging. I'll take this as a favor for now until I can escape from NJ.

Bartholomew Roberts said:

My point is that arguing which anti-Second Amendment candidate is more likely to accidentally give us a slightly more positive decision is a losing game. If we allow the nominees to be anti-Second Amendment candidates, we will eventually lose regardless of which party wins.

Click to expand...

I don't think Christie could be nominated or elected President in 2016. I don't think he should be.

But I do think that that with his charisma he would be able to help get a strong 2A-supporting candidate elected if he were to receive the Vice Presidential nomination.

Put the names of available 2A supporting Southern and Western Governors with a decent economic track record in a hat, pull out a name, add Christie as VP and I think you'd have both a winning ticked and a 2A supporting President.

Or at least one that is more likely to win than the last two. Christie may not be a strong 2A person, but how much damage can he possibly do in 8 years at the Naval Observatory?

If we allow the nominees to be anti-Second Amendment candidates, we will eventually lose regardless of which party wins.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I hope that you are not misinterpreting my posts as support for Christie. I support the vetoes, and I let him know that. I also let reminded him he is being closely watched on this issue. That kind of pressure is nothing but helpful to our cause IMO.

As for the primary campaign, I will only support the strongest liberty-loving, constitution protecting candidate available. When I say support, I mean true support, both financial and otherwise.

If, however, someone like Christie gets the nomination, I will do what I must to oppose the socialist he will likely be running against. I reject ENTIRELY the notion that it doesn't matter, and would submit the last 5 years of hell as proof.

Bartholomew Roberts said:

Not voting for Christie for any national office. I'm glad Christie spared the residents of NJ from even more stupid gun laws but Christie has supported bans in the past and supports NJ's existing ridiculous gun laws. He is no friend to the Second Amendment. If he is the best the GOP can offer in 2016 then they are already lost.

Click to expand...

Agreed...and our only real chance of winning in my opinion. A sad state of affairs...

Agreed...and our only real chance of winning in my opinion. A sad state of affairs...

Click to expand...

Really? You would stay home on Election Day rather than showing up to support WHOEVER opposes the socialist gun grabbing alternative? I'll flag this thread and revisit when that line of thinking gets Eric Holder named to the high court. Given the last 5 years, don't think for one second it could not happen. There is NO GOP candidate, regardless how RINO they may be, that would have given us such an AG, nor would they have nominated anything like this presidents appointments to the court. It is ludicrous to suggest they would.

Guns may be the most vital foundation of our country, but anti RKBA issues are not the only issues threatening the destruction of our republic. Hell, I'm not sure it's salvageable at this point regardless who wins.

Thanks to all that stood on principle and refused to show last November. These next three years are going to be AWESOME.

No I would not stay home, and I would vote for just about any alternative other than the current administration.

If I had to choose between Obama and Christie in 2016, the choice would be easy. They are both bad choices, but one more so than the other.

Glad to see Christie still has a little bit of 2nd amendment common sense with those vetoes. Do you think POTUS would have made the same decision when those bills came across his desk?

Not this POTUS. But, frankly, I am not certain a president Christie would have vetoed these same bills were he in the Oval Office. We all need to work very hard over the next three years to avoid finding out.

As for the vetoes themselves, the daily caller has an article indicating Christie WOULD have supported a ban on .50 BMG rifles, but this particular bill included all .50's which he considered excessively broad. He is definitely not wired to be a strong RKBA supporter. However, these vetoes at least suggest he recognizes he cannot win politically while pursuing an aggressive anti RKBA agenda. His opponent certainly would.

This is a multi faceted political fight. We must make sure such bills never come across the presidents desk. Presidents of BOTH parties have signed anti-gun legislation into law in the past, right?

K96771 said:

From the Burlington County Times (NJ) today. This is what we deal with. I would think he broke a few laws, if this is indeed true.

Earlier Friday, gun control advocate Bryan Miller took a disabled .50-caliber sniper rifle to the Statehouse to demonstrate its destructive capacity.
"These are military weapons designed and manufactured to destroy material targets such as chemical plants, refineries, chemical and rail tanks and passenger aircraft, targets that abound in New Jersey," he said. "A potential attack with a .50-caliber weapon could have a catastrophic environmental impact in the Garden State."

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

And they're so effective at this that people like, say, President Clinton ordered an attack on an industrial complex in Sudan in 1988 with a .50 caliber rifle!

Oh, wait...that was an attack carried out by submarine launched TLAMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles).

I dispise people who obviously (to those with two neurons and a connecting dentrite) don't know what they're talking about and are deliberately catering BS to the rest of the population that also evidently doesn't have two neurons and a connecting dentrite.

Grrrr....