What's to stop NJ from re-enacting their smart gun law?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Well, the Brady Campaign has now used New Jersey because they haven't followed through with their enforcement of their smart gun law saying within 3 years of a smart gun being sold anywhere all new guns in NJ have to be smart guns.

State senator Loretta Weinberg said she's repeal her law if the NRA would stop attempting to block the sale of smart guns and allow the free market to decide.



Well, let's say Weinberg successfully repeals NJ's smart gun mandate, what's to stop her from quickly re-enacting it shortly after the smart gun becomes available for sale somewhere?



It's really not free market when your forced to buy only a particular item. Plus wouldn't all current guns fall under "in current use"?

 

[blarby]

Well, let's say Weinberg successfully repeals NJ's smart gun mandate, what's to stop her from quickly re-enacting it shortly after the smart gun becomes available for sale somewhere?

Based on the trust of a politician- nothing. It would require a substantial legal rework to actually remove it from the books.

I'm not a NJ resident, and never have been, but in any state wishing away inconvenient laws does not actually make them go away.

If you are there, what you can do is organize- establish a group of potential leaders that could change then trend, and then organize some more to get that slate elected en-mass. Thats what changing things actually does, and takes.

 

[kwguy]

"State senator Loretta Weinberg said she's repeal her law if the NRA would stop attempting to block the sale of smart guns and allow the free market to decide."

Wow, so now the NRA has to try to keep its 1st amendment rights intact as we'll?

It's not like they can do anything against the sale of 'smart guns' except speak out against it. Putting those things on the free market wouldn't be a big deal except for this:

Politicians will make them mandatory in some way, shape, or form. That will infringe upon OUR rights. If there were NO legislation one way or the other about these devices, and it was just left up to the free market, that would be fine. They'd probably not sell well, and that would be the end of it. But that won't happen, because the anti gun politicians won't leave it alone. That's the danger.

They should just go back to trying to ban red cars or something...

 

[HexHead]

Who cares, it's Joisey. The bridge & tunnel crowd elected these idiots.

 

[Tom488]

Who cares, it's Joisey. The bridge & tunnel crowd elected these idiots.

"And then they came for me.... and there was no one left."

 

[steve4102]

State senator Loretta Weinberg said she's repeal her law if the NRA would stop attempting to block the sale of smart guns and allow the free market to decide.

From the news articles I have read, that not exactly what she said. This is what was reported to be said to MSNBC.

New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said in an exclusive interview Friday with msnbc that she will introduce a bill to reverse a 2002 New Jersey “smart gun” law if the National Rifle Association will agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.

First, this doesn't say she will repeal anything, only that she will introduce a bill, introduce it to the same group of Democrats that passed it in the first place. Odds are it will go nowhere.

Also, what does "stand in the way" actually mean? Not much or just about anything? I see this as an attempt to demonize and discredit the NRA and portray them as evil and non caring gun toten monsters that are "standing in the way of technology" that will save thousands of children's lives each year.

It will work too.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Politically, the best thing that could happen for us would be to have NJ not rescind the law, to allow it to be triggered, and to watch the result. A wake-up call to the balance of the nation by allowing them to watch a small-scale version of the possibilities would do more to galvanize the balance of the populace than can be imagined. In addition,the local outrage in NJ would be substantial.

They made the bed, now let them lie in it. It would be painful for a while in NJ but the end benefit would be manifest.


Willie

.

 

[kwguy]

^^ I would certainly hope that you would be correct in this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn't work that way, and would somehow (in some way that I can't really see) be done in such a way as to 'slowly turn up the heat in the pot' so as not to make the frog jump out so quickly.

 

[rdhood]

Well, let's say Weinberg successfully repeals NJ's smart gun mandate, what's to stop her from quickly re-enacting it shortly after the smart gun becomes available for sale somewhere?

Absolutely nothing. Any time an anti says "we will get rid of X firearm related law if Y agrees to something", you know you are about to get rolled. If they passed the law in the first place, they'll pass it again as soon as they get what they want from the NRA. Do you really think they care if the NRA/gun owners hold them in contempt for a lie? They will laugh all the way to the state house.

 

[geekWithA.45]

It is best if we review Weinberg's record and conclude that she is an implacable enemy of gun rights.

 

[barnbwt]

Getting her to pass a bill/amendment requiring a 2/3rds vote to overturn that forbids, in no uncertain terms, the re-imposition of a ban on handguns/firearms founded in patented technologies (i.e. if the "smart guns" have expired patents, their being open-source makes .gov control quite a bit tougher due to incompatibilities/variations/etc.), as well as a separate bill requiring a 3/4 or higher vote (or a state-level binding court opinion) that forbids the state from acquiring the means to deactivate firearms en masse. Requiring the devices to fail in the 'operational' position would supplement this feat most elegantly.

The first law would be unpalatable to budding fascists because it prevents the government from using their authority to direct commerce.

The second law is too 'vague' for power-hungry statists that populate America today to get behind, but it is essentially a rewording of the 2nd Amendment, specific to this case.

The third one is just good sense, but I could foresee 'soft coercion' being used to 'convince' the majority of makers to build their systems to suit authorities (what with their audit and zoning discretion, and all )

TCB