When did New Jersey become so anti-gun ? The background

[whalerman]

It is not the laws that are our problem. As Pilot said, its the attitude. It is a generation that does not value individual freedom. Find a way to address this and laws can be changed overnight. Schools and media. Most people just keep their mouths shut when schools indoctrinate and when media spreads ignorance and misinformation. Call 'em. Write 'em. If everybody who can think for themselves would challenge these groups, we could initiate change. One thing I believe both entities have in common, laziness. They will take the path of least resistance. So far, they're dominated by people who just don't know.

 

[bushmaster1313]

My personal unsubstantiated theory is that the laws were designed to restrict black people from having access to handguns and to provide the police with a convenient crime that could be applied to black people carrying guns.

 

[Midwest]

My personal unsubstantiated theory is that the laws were designed to restrict black people from having access to handguns and to provide the police with a convenient crime that could be applied to black people carrying guns.

I been reading up a lot on the gun laws and where they came from and what was the atmosphere at the time, and I am just scratching the surface. As I read further and further into all this I start to see what that lead to where we are today.

New York's Sullivan Law in 1911 is very well documented, but that wasn't particularity directed against blacks. But it is considered discriminatory against blacks and poor people as well as middle class people, back then and still today.

I found out the NJ permit to carry process actually dates back much further, back to 1912, the model T era...with a whole bunch of exemptions for law enforcement of course. A year after Sullivan? nah...just a coincidence.....

California, and the history on what caused the ban on open carry (loaded) is a very interesting read and goes with disarming blacks. Please read the following from the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/1/

I first saw this link appear in another thread on THR, but it explained what happened in California in 1967. Makes for an interesting read from that time period, even blames the NRA.

"It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement."


Permit to Purchase

Some have argued that these "purchase permits" gun laws are remnants out of the Jim Crow laws, and are really meant to restrict blacks from owning guns. Some have pointed at the laws in North Carolina where one must go to the sheriff to get a handgun permit (If they don't have a NC CCW permit) is discriminatory. But at least there you have a right to get a CCW and it is shall issue.

The situation in New Jersey dates back to 1966 and it is primarily blamed on the shooting of a NJ trooper by an out of state ex-convict. This is the excuse used for passage of that steaming pile called the 'Sills Act'. By using the excuse, they can 'argue' that the law doesn't discriminate as it applies to all the citizens and they must crack down on crime.

In fact the "Sills Act" permit to purchase scheme does discriminate, it discriminates against the poor and that means both white and black. The people who cannot afford to live in affluent areas of the state are also the ones who could least afford the $60 fingerprint fees, $18 recurrent background checks, $18 State NICS checks, pistol permits, 3 to 6 month waits for the background checks to come back. All that, just so they can just hope to protect themselves and their loved ones (at home) in a crime infested area.

Using a reason for the passage of the Sills Act ... then one in theory could use a reason for a 'religious permit' as well, then why not make everyone under go a background check with three references, fingerprints, photographs, mental health check, $100 in fees, a six month wait before a person can be allowed go to a church, synagogue or mosque?

Call it 'the religious protection act of 2012' and see how far it goes legally...Both the second amendment and the freedom of religion is guaranteed by law. But only one of the two is really protected in all 50 states.

'Religious Permit'

To further illustrate the stupidity of it all, suppose NJ only allows worship every other weekend, and institutes a 'religious permit' system. Illinois allows church one weekend, synagogue the next weekend and worship at the mosque the next weekend after that. Maryland decides where people can worship based on their zip code. Massachusetts decides to enforce a 'religious permit' on its citizens. California decides that cities over 200,000 must cut the amount of houses of worship in half in order to use the properties for commercial purposes to raise taxes. But in Pennsylvania there are no religious restrictions or permits to attend worship.... but it is all nice, fair, "reasonable" and legal...right?

I can drive to NYC with my KY drivers license....but...

It does seem ridiculous...Wait it gets better...We hear the politicians say they want gun owners to have a 'gun license' much like they have a license to drive a car. So then if I get a 'gun license' than it should be valid in all 50 states like a 'drivers license' is...right?

Using this scenario. I can drive my car from here to New York City on a Kentucky drivers license and Kentucky plate and registration and I am perfectly legal to drive there and around the city.

However Kentucky does not have a car inspection, no emissions check, only has one license plate, (unlike NYC's two license plate requirement) and NY has a car inspection/emissions sticker. New York City and Kentucky's motor vehicle registration and inspection legal requirements are very different. (New York City and Kentucky gun laws are very different)

I can legally drive to New York City or even New Jersey on my Kentucky drivers license issued by Kentucky, under the laws of Kentucky. And New York and New Jersey will allow me and my vehicle into the state even though it may not be up to NY and NJ strict motor vehicle registration laws regarding vehicle inspection and emissions check. Now driving is a privilege (as we been told) and not a right. OK?

But the second amendment is (supposed to be) a right and not a privilege and yet I will not be legal if I travel to and throughout New York City or New Jersey with a Kentucky issued concealed carry license with a handgun.

Now whats wrong with this picture? Kentucky issues drivers licenses and they are legal for me to drive in all 50 states? So...Kentucky issues carry permits and they are only good in what? Thirty states?

And yet inexplicably none of this is considered discriminatory, if states start a permit system for going to church or only allow vehicles to travel to or in NY and NJ that have a NY and NJ emissions sticker...how far will that go before those laws are thrown out?

Cell phones are among the same argument, some states you can use them while driving, other states you need a headset. But in all states you can legally carry a cell phone on you no matter where you drive. The use of a cell phone in a vehicle is regulated state by state but it is legal to use a cellphone regardless. However I don't recall seeing cellphones in the constitution or bill of rights. The second amendment is there though, and it is a right not a privilege.

Some of these states deny your right in the law to legally carry a means of self defense. You cannot defend yourself or protect your family, but you have the 'right' to call 911...after it is too late.



There lies the discrimination....

 

[bushmaster1313]

'Religious Permit'

To further illustrate the stupidity of it all, suppose NJ only allows worship every other weekend, and institutes a 'religious permit' system. Illinois allows church one weekend, synagogue the next weekend and worship at the mosque the next weekend after that. Maryland decides where people can worship based on their zip code. Massachusetts decides to enforce a 'religious permit' on its citizens. California decides that cities over 200,000 must cut the amount of houses of worship in half in order to use the properties for commercial purposes to raise taxes. But in Pennsylvania there are no religious restrictions or permits to attend worship.... but it is all nice, fair, "reasonable" and legal...right?

I live in NJ and a town near my home has a "Church Ordinance," so-named.

Requires special zoning for any place that has prayer meetings or religious teaching.
Zoning is something like 180' street frontage and lots and lots of parking.

Okay to meet to show porn flicks, but do not try to get friends together to pray or read the bible.

This in a town which prides itself as progressive

 

[JohnBT]

I can see you've likely never lived next to a house in a small subdivision that was turned into a "church" with Bible School classes during the week in the summer, day care during the week year around, meetings on Saturday, Sunday School and then services on Sundays and no parking for the 50 or 100 people who would show up. Three cars would fit in the driveway and about ten on the street nearby and that was it.

Freedom of religion doesn't let you do anything you want and disturb your neighbors. Not very Christian either to my way of thinking.

John