New Jersey Approves Restrictive Gun Law Using Social Media Posts For Denying Permits, NRA Files Laws

Ks5shooter said:
I dont understand when they say"it will be like the wild west" 34 or so other states are not the wild west.Including PA which is 15 miles from our horse farm.
Click to expand...

That is a common theme among gun control advocates. We hear that all the time from states with heavy restrictions. We also hear it every time a state tries to pass conceal carry laws too. I remember how the liberals in the big cities here in Missouri cried the same thing when we got CCW passed years ago. And the places where "it was like the Wild West" were in places like St Louis with its very strict gun laws and lack of criminal prosecution.
 
It's been clear for years which states are rabidly antigun. So, anyone who is interested in guns is on notice. By choosing to live there, you are in effect acquiescing to the restrictions.

When I moved from Texas to the Washington, D.C. area in 1970, I had a choice of jurisdiction in which to locate: D.C., Maryland, or Virginia. Even then, the handwriting was on the wall, and I chose Virginia.
 
The "liability" insurance would seem to be the biggest prohibitive issue for most folks, unless home owners insurance would suffice. Folks that post anything publicly that would prohibit them, probably deserve what they get.
 
If social media content could be used to deny gun rights it would most certainly have at least delayed several high profile massacres.

Reducing mass-shootings would benefit gun rights overall
 
AlexanderA said:
It's been clear for years which states are rabidly antigun. So, anyone who is interested in guns is on notice. By choosing to live there, you are in effect acquiescing to the restrictions.
Click to expand...

One can’t always choose where one lives when you’re of working age. I have a nice home, family nearby, good quality of live, and laws that don’t make sense. When I retire, things will change. New Jersey patterned their law after NY, we already live with this fun.

Necessary_Nutrient said:
If social media content could be used to deny gun rights it would most certainly have at least delayed several high profile
Click to expand...

So who gets to choose what speech gets confiscation?
 
- 4 endorsements from non-relatives.


- Liability insurance.


Right.
 
dh1633pm said:
One can’t always choose where one lives when you’re of working age. I have a nice home, family nearby, good quality of live, and laws that don’t make sense. When I retire, things will change. New Jersey patterned their law after NY, we already live with this fun.



So who gets to choose what speech gets confiscation?
Click to expand...

Permit issuing authorities I’d imagine. In a shall issue default state it could be a useful tool to fight against the most dangerous people and the signals they send. Nicholas Cruz described himself as a “professional school shooter” online before he became a mass shooter. I’d call that a valid red flag.

I know our default can tend to be an assumption that ‘they’ are out to get us and will take 45 y/o white dudes rights away for posting a harmless video online. The way such laws are written should make that a non-issue.

In order to proceed with a quality discussion I think we need to agree that not everyone should own a gun and those issuing violent threats online are great candidates for a stamp of “NO”
 
Aim1 said:
- 4 endorsements from non-relatives.


- Liability insurance.


Right.
Click to expand...

TWO such references have long been required to obtain a NJ pistol purchase permit or NJ firearm purchaser ID card. That by itself will deter anyone who doesn't mix much with their neighbors or don't have gun-friendly friends. One must count on friends in the state to receive, fill out, and sign, forms sent by the local police department. It's all designed to discourage firearms ownership. Think about someone who moves to the state and doesn't know anyone, especially in the densely populated areas. Two was a pain, a violation of privacy, 2A rights and was and is disgusting.

I suspect that FOUR is probably going to be applied to the above purchase permits and any carry permit process. Beyond this, such a scheme should fall in the face of recent 2A decisions.

I recall reading that groups of friends (range buddies) would maintain a continuous set of pistol purchase permit applications submitted so that at any time someone found a handgun they wanted to buy, a permit would be in hand. This is the kind of crap people had to go through just to keep their rights usable.

I would like to see sanctions on those who pass such laws. I think it's no different than a poll tax.
 
Necessary_Nutrient said:
Permit issuing authorities I’d imagine. In a shall issue default state it could be a useful tool to fight against the most dangerous people and the signals they send. Nicholas Cruz described himself as a “professional school shooter” online before he became a mass shooter. I’d call that a valid red flag.

I know our default can tend to be an assumption that ‘they’ are out to get us and will take 45 y/o white dudes rights away for posting a harmless video online. The way such laws are written should make that a non-issue.

In order to proceed with a quality discussion I think we need to agree that not everyone should own a gun and those issuing violent threats online are great candidates for a stamp of “NO”
Click to expand...

Those issuing credible threats online or in any other manner are subject to prosecution apart from any discussion of gun rights, already. But pre-emptive social media searches to determine suitability to exercise an enumerated constitutional right goes way past reasonable public safety measures.
 
Necessary_Nutrient said:
Permit issuing authorities I’d imagine. In a shall issue default state it could be a useful tool to fight against the most dangerous people and the signals they send. Nicholas Cruz described himself as a “professional school shooter” online before he became a mass shooter. I’d call that a valid red flag.

I know our default can tend to be an assumption that ‘they’ are out to get us and will take 45 y/o white dudes rights away for posting a harmless video online. The way such laws are written should make that a non-issue.

In order to proceed with a quality discussion I think we need to agree that not everyone should own a gun and those issuing violent threats online are great candidates for a stamp of “NO”
Click to expand...

So you're comfortable with people who label the NRA a terrorist organization, Republican voters a threat to democracy and many Bible passages as hate speech deciding what speech can be used to deny a person their 2A rights? People can disagree with these views, but that's a far cry from what they're doing. Based on their history they will abuse this and deny permits.
 
The decision of SCOTUS concerning RvsW right before an election was brilliant! The antis are enboldened after the midterms. They will pass the most unconstitutional gun laws in American history. SCOTUS will strike them down, once and for all, establishing 2A rights once and for all in no uncertain terms!

I'm on the floor laughing at the Left right now for any recent or future gun restrictions imposed on American citizens.
 
And we pretend like the ChiCom social credit system/black list system could never happen here in the land of the free and the home of the brave but, the truth is, all the pieces are in place and they're trying their hardest to cram it down our throats. Free speech and the right to keep and bear arms chilled and choked at the same time. It's genius. You have to give our fascist oligarchs credit for devising such an insidious plan but that's no reason to quietly accept it. Hopefully the supreme court will send this unconstitutional nonsense to the American history landfill where it will remain forever.
 
Necessary_Nutrient said:
I know our default can tend to be an assumption that ‘they’ are out to get us and will take 45 y/o white dudes rights away for posting a harmless video online. The way such laws are written should make that a non-issue.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. Everything about this law contradicts the findings in Heller and Bruen. The law intends to place extreme obstacles in front of anyone wanting a carry license and insure that if they should get one, will have virtually nowhere to legally carry.

It is not an assumption that they are out to get us, the politicians in NJ, NY, and CA have openly said so. They do not believe in the right to self defense (unless you are politically connected) and are pulling out all the stops to squash it. If you think they are looking out for the best interests of a 45 year old white guy who has never posted anything stupid on the internet, or anyone else, you are dreaming.
 
They are merely counting on how slowly our court system works.
It doesn't matter whether or not a law is legal or constitutional if a court hasn't ruled for or against it.
If the ruling goes against the lawmakers then it is then taken up with the next higher court... .
 
buck460XVR said:
The "liability" insurance would seem to be the biggest prohibitive issue for most folks, unless home owners insurance would suffice. Folks that post anything publicly that would prohibit them, probably deserve what they get.
Click to expand...
Liability insurance doesn't cover intentional torts. What we're talking about is things like negligent storage. This is a small part of the "gun problem." Like many other things proposed by the antigunners, this is misdirected.
 
Combing through social media postings will have the end effect of putting a damper on online speech, which today acts as a safety valve. Prospective mass murderers will shut up, and go about their nefarious plans quietly. This actually makes mass shootings more likely.

"Gun control" is rife with unintended consequences.
 
"Gun Control -- as currently being considered/implemented -- is akin
to putting a BandAide over a melanoma.

The problem has evolved to be a systemically-Social one at this point.


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
NRA files lawsuit against New Jersey over concealed-carry permit law - Justifiable Need requirement
Replies
18
Views
909
Dudedog
Dudedog
M
  • Locked
NJ: Magazine Capacity Restriction Vetoed
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Nickel Plated
N
A
  • Locked
New angle: New Jersey man fights state gun permit law all the way to Supreme Court?
Replies
4
Views
859
boom boom
boom boom
B
  • Locked
Holder Threatens Kansas Over New Gun Laws
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
10K
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
A
  • Locked
21 State Attorneys General Ask Supreme Court to Void Maryland Gun Law - Good Reason
Replies
24
Views
2K
GEM
G
Back
Top