Tuesday, July 1, 2008
- More Truth About Global Warming
It seems the rest of the world is starting to catch on to what nonsense the “global Warming” movement is. In a Wall Street Journal Piece today, Bret Stevens calls it a “Mass Neurosis”. In particular he, and other writers, now seem to be catching on to how much of this movement is about “faith” and how little is about evidence:
If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
I’ve been saying this for ages, but since my job for the last 20 years has been to analyze data similar to that used to justify global warming alarmism, I’ve got what amounts to an unfair advantage in detecting the environmental “bull”. It's nice to see the non-quantitative world beginning to catch on. This piece won't change any one's mind of course because it's talking about things like "logic" and "evidence", and both of those concepts have been beaten out of the global warming movement for ages now.
At this point, the smartest people are all turning away from the hype. Pretty soon the only people who continue to believe in global warming will be those too inexperienced to know when they're being had, and those who fall into the left half of the intelligence bell curve. People like undergraduates and high school kids will make up most of the first group, and actors, journalists, politicians and public school teachers will make up most of the second.
In a related story (and when it comes to global warming we already know that we’re supposed to think of everything as related) a vast algae bloom has engulfed the port of Qingdao in China, offering an unattractive setting for the sailing events for the coming Olympics. Some of the pictures of this are pretty cool:
I personally keep thinking about how much of that dreaded CO2 this algae is slurping out of the atmosphere.
I know what you’re thinking… you’re wondering: "Where are all the environmentalists demanding that China leave the algae alone in order help “save the planet”?"
Well the fact is, the global warming movement is made up, largely of rich, spoiled, shallow, self congratulatory kids who have never really considered the consequences of their short sighted opinions. And those aren’t the kind of people that stand up to heavily armed totalitarian regimes. Most of them only support the global warming faith because it gives them a chance to proclaim themselves more moral than their peers in a way that doesn’t actually require going to the trouble of adopting any moral behavior on their part.
Besides, China has “commanded” 20,000 of it’s citizens to clean up the mess and none of them are complaining about it. So I don’t think anyone has trouble believing that the Chinese government would have no problem throwing a few hundred of the environmental faithful into a deep dark hole in some central China prison somewhere… at least until after the Olympics.
The global warming faithful don't even have the courage to stand up to a guy like me, let alone the world's largest totalitarian country. So I'm betting they'll be sitting this one out.
If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
I’ve been saying this for ages, but since my job for the last 20 years has been to analyze data similar to that used to justify global warming alarmism, I’ve got what amounts to an unfair advantage in detecting the environmental “bull”. It's nice to see the non-quantitative world beginning to catch on. This piece won't change any one's mind of course because it's talking about things like "logic" and "evidence", and both of those concepts have been beaten out of the global warming movement for ages now.
At this point, the smartest people are all turning away from the hype. Pretty soon the only people who continue to believe in global warming will be those too inexperienced to know when they're being had, and those who fall into the left half of the intelligence bell curve. People like undergraduates and high school kids will make up most of the first group, and actors, journalists, politicians and public school teachers will make up most of the second.
In a related story (and when it comes to global warming we already know that we’re supposed to think of everything as related) a vast algae bloom has engulfed the port of Qingdao in China, offering an unattractive setting for the sailing events for the coming Olympics. Some of the pictures of this are pretty cool:
I personally keep thinking about how much of that dreaded CO2 this algae is slurping out of the atmosphere.
I know what you’re thinking… you’re wondering: "Where are all the environmentalists demanding that China leave the algae alone in order help “save the planet”?"
Well the fact is, the global warming movement is made up, largely of rich, spoiled, shallow, self congratulatory kids who have never really considered the consequences of their short sighted opinions. And those aren’t the kind of people that stand up to heavily armed totalitarian regimes. Most of them only support the global warming faith because it gives them a chance to proclaim themselves more moral than their peers in a way that doesn’t actually require going to the trouble of adopting any moral behavior on their part.
Besides, China has “commanded” 20,000 of it’s citizens to clean up the mess and none of them are complaining about it. So I don’t think anyone has trouble believing that the Chinese government would have no problem throwing a few hundred of the environmental faithful into a deep dark hole in some central China prison somewhere… at least until after the Olympics.
The global warming faithful don't even have the courage to stand up to a guy like me, let alone the world's largest totalitarian country. So I'm betting they'll be sitting this one out.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
- A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
Linked here is a great piece by Dr. Sarah Thompson on how to deal with those who have an anti-gun mentality. She describes how best to talk to someone who is rabidly anti-gun, and to my eyes anyway, does so by treating them as if they have serious emotional problems. An Excerpt:
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
She goes on to describe in detail what the best verbal strategies are for helping them “down off the ledge” and provides excellent examples:
Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.
One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?"
Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.
And after explaining the best way to help people see reason, she makes it clear that we should have realistic expectations:
You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.
You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.
It’s a really phenomenal piece and I highly recommend that you repost it, email and distribute it in any way you can.
This was brought to you by : "Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership".
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
She goes on to describe in detail what the best verbal strategies are for helping them “down off the ledge” and provides excellent examples:
Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.
One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?"
Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.
And after explaining the best way to help people see reason, she makes it clear that we should have realistic expectations:
You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.
You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.
It’s a really phenomenal piece and I highly recommend that you repost it, email and distribute it in any way you can.
This was brought to you by : "Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership".
Friday, June 27, 2008
- DC Gun Ban: Where Do We Go From Here?
There’s a national law prohibiting the state of New Jersey from infringing on my right to free speech. If there weren't, given the State government’s history, I believe they’d have found some excuse to shut me up by now. They can’t possibly like the things I’m saying, but it was unpopular speech that the national law was specifically designed to protect. So I can confidently continue typing away, making a small but continual nuisance of myself, without fear of repercussions from the state.
It’s the US constitution which protects my right to free speech; the first amendment specifically. And "freedom of speech" may seem like a unique ans special right. It isn't really, but since the members of the mainstream news media are protected by the same law, they constantly talk up it's importance. There is no doubt about it ... the right to freedom of speech is highly regarded by those who make their living speaking freely, but there are several other rights in the constitution as well. And as of yesterday, the only difference between those other rights and the right of free speech is the volume and frequency with which the major media reminds us of them.
The legal reasons for this are a little tricky because the US constitution only limits the acts of the US government and doesn't specifically restrict the governments of the various states. But when it comes to laws that may infringe upon our rights, then the states are limited by it as well. The reason for that is called the “incorporation of rights” under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was adopted after the civil war to prevent former confederate states from drafting laws which would restrict the rights of newly freed slaves. In effect it made the US Constitution the last word where all individual rights are concerned.
And although you’re unlikely to hear much about it from the media, this is about to become a very big issue in New Jersey. Because like those confederate states, New Jersey would very much prefer not to allow its citizens the freedom to exercise their rights either. In particular the State of New Jersey would forcibly deny its citizens their most precious right, more important even that the right to vote or to speak one’s mind. The State of New Jersey would very much like to deny its citizens the right to defend their own lives.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the DC Gun Ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In the Majority opinion, Justice Scalia clearly stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That means that the rights enumerated by the second amendment apply to individual citizens in the same way as those rights in the first amendment, like freedom of speech. Now that it's clear that they all apply to the individual, all those rights become the same under the law. And it would be unjust and illegal for the State government to infringe upon that right.
Until now, those who would deny Americans their rights have insisted that the second amendment was somehow different from the first and that the rights enumerated there only applied to the government or “the Militia”. Justice Scalia’s straightforward language has thoroughly dispelled that myth. But there still remain some questions as to what this really means for the citizenry. There are all manner or restrictions, licensing schemes, rationing mechanisms, and outright bans that apply to entire classes of “arms”, all of which Justice Scalia very specifically said that his ruling “did not address”. That doesn’t mean his ruling approved of any of those partial disarmamnt schemes, only that his ruling didn't specifically speak to them. It will take other cases for the court to address those points. So where does that leave the issue?
If tomorrow the NJ legislature enacted legislation which said that “only certain kinds of speech” were allowed, it would be judged to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. If they enacted another law which said that you may write only one political essay a month, or say that you couldn’t engage in speech that was potentially too “dangerous” or to ban discussions of entire topics all together, then it would clearly be unconstitutional. If they enacted laws that made it illegal for anyone but a professional politician to speak in public, or set a requirement for a license in order to speak on impassioned topics, all those laws would be in violation of the constitution. And yet the New Jersey government forces those very types of restrictions on its citizens today.
At present, the New Jersey government has an outright ban on a number of classes of semi-automatic weapons. Not machine guns which are covered by other laws, but firearms that operate the same as any hunting rifle. It has a bewildering array of licenses, permits, and permissions that must be obtained from the government and kept up to date before any citizen may purchase a firearm. Although it isn’t specifically illegal, procedurally, the State hasn’t issued a permit to carry a firearm to any private citizen in several decades, making anyone who feels the need to carry a weapon in self defense an instant criminal in spite of their constitutionally protected right to do so.
This is a right of the individual citizen that is being willfully and systematically infringed upon by a tyrannical government that insists that we remain disarmed. We are each of us entitled to “keep” a weapon in our homes, and “bear” it when we feel the necessity. It is our right to be able to defend our lives. And we must now find a way to compel the state of New Jersey to recognize that rights as well.
No tyrannical government has ever willingly granted the citizenry its rights, and I’m sure New Jersey will be no different. And because that’s so, we must compel the state legislature and courts to recognize that the law of the land also applies in New Jersey. We must all argue for “incorporation “of the second amendment under the 14th amendment. We must make it clear to those who would deny us that our rights under the second amendment are the same in every way as our rights under the first.
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is a right which cannot be denied by the Federal government, just like the right to free speech, or freedom of assembly or freedom of religion. It is, like all the other rights, inalienable. And under the 14th amendment it’s a right that the state of New Jersey can no longer deny us.
It’s the US constitution which protects my right to free speech; the first amendment specifically. And "freedom of speech" may seem like a unique ans special right. It isn't really, but since the members of the mainstream news media are protected by the same law, they constantly talk up it's importance. There is no doubt about it ... the right to freedom of speech is highly regarded by those who make their living speaking freely, but there are several other rights in the constitution as well. And as of yesterday, the only difference between those other rights and the right of free speech is the volume and frequency with which the major media reminds us of them.
The legal reasons for this are a little tricky because the US constitution only limits the acts of the US government and doesn't specifically restrict the governments of the various states. But when it comes to laws that may infringe upon our rights, then the states are limited by it as well. The reason for that is called the “incorporation of rights” under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was adopted after the civil war to prevent former confederate states from drafting laws which would restrict the rights of newly freed slaves. In effect it made the US Constitution the last word where all individual rights are concerned.
And although you’re unlikely to hear much about it from the media, this is about to become a very big issue in New Jersey. Because like those confederate states, New Jersey would very much prefer not to allow its citizens the freedom to exercise their rights either. In particular the State of New Jersey would forcibly deny its citizens their most precious right, more important even that the right to vote or to speak one’s mind. The State of New Jersey would very much like to deny its citizens the right to defend their own lives.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the DC Gun Ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In the Majority opinion, Justice Scalia clearly stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That means that the rights enumerated by the second amendment apply to individual citizens in the same way as those rights in the first amendment, like freedom of speech. Now that it's clear that they all apply to the individual, all those rights become the same under the law. And it would be unjust and illegal for the State government to infringe upon that right.
Until now, those who would deny Americans their rights have insisted that the second amendment was somehow different from the first and that the rights enumerated there only applied to the government or “the Militia”. Justice Scalia’s straightforward language has thoroughly dispelled that myth. But there still remain some questions as to what this really means for the citizenry. There are all manner or restrictions, licensing schemes, rationing mechanisms, and outright bans that apply to entire classes of “arms”, all of which Justice Scalia very specifically said that his ruling “did not address”. That doesn’t mean his ruling approved of any of those partial disarmamnt schemes, only that his ruling didn't specifically speak to them. It will take other cases for the court to address those points. So where does that leave the issue?
If tomorrow the NJ legislature enacted legislation which said that “only certain kinds of speech” were allowed, it would be judged to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. If they enacted another law which said that you may write only one political essay a month, or say that you couldn’t engage in speech that was potentially too “dangerous” or to ban discussions of entire topics all together, then it would clearly be unconstitutional. If they enacted laws that made it illegal for anyone but a professional politician to speak in public, or set a requirement for a license in order to speak on impassioned topics, all those laws would be in violation of the constitution. And yet the New Jersey government forces those very types of restrictions on its citizens today.
At present, the New Jersey government has an outright ban on a number of classes of semi-automatic weapons. Not machine guns which are covered by other laws, but firearms that operate the same as any hunting rifle. It has a bewildering array of licenses, permits, and permissions that must be obtained from the government and kept up to date before any citizen may purchase a firearm. Although it isn’t specifically illegal, procedurally, the State hasn’t issued a permit to carry a firearm to any private citizen in several decades, making anyone who feels the need to carry a weapon in self defense an instant criminal in spite of their constitutionally protected right to do so.
This is a right of the individual citizen that is being willfully and systematically infringed upon by a tyrannical government that insists that we remain disarmed. We are each of us entitled to “keep” a weapon in our homes, and “bear” it when we feel the necessity. It is our right to be able to defend our lives. And we must now find a way to compel the state of New Jersey to recognize that rights as well.
No tyrannical government has ever willingly granted the citizenry its rights, and I’m sure New Jersey will be no different. And because that’s so, we must compel the state legislature and courts to recognize that the law of the land also applies in New Jersey. We must all argue for “incorporation “of the second amendment under the 14th amendment. We must make it clear to those who would deny us that our rights under the second amendment are the same in every way as our rights under the first.
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is a right which cannot be denied by the Federal government, just like the right to free speech, or freedom of assembly or freedom of religion. It is, like all the other rights, inalienable. And under the 14th amendment it’s a right that the state of New Jersey can no longer deny us.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
- Waiting for "The Big One"
Well the big day is upon us. Less than 24 hours from now the Supreme Court of the United States will render it’s judgment on the DC gun Ban case, and in the process either reaffirm or strip away the second amendment to the US constitution as an individual right of the people. If their judgment supports the second amendment, then it will be the beginning of the end for the gun control movement in the US. The NRA will then be able to take a play from the book of the far left and launch lawsuit after lawsuit to return a constitutional right to the American public.
And not a moment too soon for those if us in NJ, for as I type two new laws designed to further restrict the right of law abiding citizens are working their way through the state legislature. In spite of the overwhelming evidence against it's effectiveness at reducing crime, the Assembly yesterday approved a “one gun a month” law, which will limit the number of handguns that can be legally purchased in any 30 day period. It still has to clear the Senate and be signed by the Governor, but with this Senate and that governor, both those events seem likely.
The idiot who proposed this utterly useless law, Joan M. Quigley, thinks that if you own a legally purchased firearm in New Jersey, then obviously you’re also selling guns to gang bangers. That’s why she believes that a law limiting legal purchases to one a month will be effective in fighting crime. She thinks all those pesky claims from citizens rights groups saying that "people who commit crimes with guns don't buy them legally" are all just red herrings that distract from the real issue. Instead she thinks the real problem is those people who go to the trouble of obeying the law. And quite an impressive set of laws they are too. To legally buy a handgun in New Jersey you must complete the following:
First you’ll submit to the 6 month long background check to get a “New Jersey Firearms ID”. That includes presenting several forms of certified ID with photographs, a several month long, painstakingly detailed check for any criminal convictions, a fingerprint scan, and a check for outstanding warrants or unpaid child support, and a reference check. After 6 months if your FID is approved, then you’ll have to submit to an additional check on your fingerprints, and any criminal history or outstanding warrants to get a handgun purchasers permit. Under present law the permit is only good for 90 days and if you don’t use it by then, you’ll have to apply for another permit from scratch. Typically that process takes a minimum of 30 days, leaving you 60 days at most to find a suitable firearm. Once you have both the FID and purchasers permit in hand, you can stroll into any authorized firearms dealer in the state of New Jersey that still sells handguns (I think there are still about 5 left in the entire state) and select a weapon.
Then before you can take the weapon home, the seller must verify your ID with certified identification including a photo; make a copy of your firearms ID, fill out the seller’s portion of the handgun purchaser’s permit with the make model and serial number of the firearm as well as the time, date, and location of the purchase. Then they must also contact the FBI by phone to get a clearance for you through the national instant criminal check system. This system checks nationally for any felony convictions, and outstanding warrants, or any court adjudicated mental health issues. And for the record, it isn’t always instant. I’ve never even been charged with anything worse than a traffic ticket and last time it took 8 days to do my NICS check. And by the way, don't let your shopping go to the last minute because if your handgun purchasers permit expires while you're waiting for your (not so instant) NICS check... guess what.
Then once you’ve done all of that….all you have to do is pay for your weapon and take it home. Now tell me, what nobel-laureate gang-banger could bluff his way through a legal and bureaucratic nightmare like that and then think it’s a good idea to turn around and sell that gun to his felon buddies? If you give her the benefit of the doubt then that’s what Joan Quigley thinks is happening.
But the truth is, I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I believe in Occam’s razor: “that the most obvious cause is almost certainly the one that’s correct”. And after all this time watching the goings on of the New Jersey State government, I think Joan M. Quigley is just another one of those politicians who thinks that the people of New Jersey are too stupid to own firearms. I think she’s really just trying to get rid of all of them, one tiny bureaucratic rule change at a time. I think she’s one more elected official who has nothing but contempt for the people who elected her, and despises the idea of anyone doing things any way but hers.
And unfortunately she isn’t alone. Both of my reps in the assembly (the ever reliable Caroline Cassagrande and Declan O’Scanlon) voted no on this useless nonsense proving that they're both a cut above average in NJ government. The two of them probably double the average IQ in the assembly just by showing up to vote. But my State Senator Jennifer Beck is a gun hating liberal from way back and will probably vote to support the bill. Yes, she has an R next to her name but that hasn’t meant much in New Jersey in a very long time. And because she believes that she knows how to run people’s lives better than they can themselves, she’s going to probably be a part of the problem this time instead of being part of the solution. She’ll ignore the evidence on laws like this and the fact that this will place a preemptive burden on collectors without effecting criminals, and support it anyway.
However, if the supreme court vigorously defends the second amendment tomorrow and “the right to bear arms” can once again be treated the same as “the right of free speech”, then a law like this can be attacked legally as “prior restraint”. That will give constitutional rights organizations lots of ammo to fight it, and over time they certainly will. But in New Jersey it will be a while before those benefits start trickling down. And in the meantime, we’re all going to have to live with one more infringement of our rights.
And if you think this is bad, just wait until the NJ legislature gets caught up and has a chance to vote on a ban of your .50 caliber muzzleloader in order to save airplanes. Because as we know, the 50 caliber rifle is being used in crimes every where you go, and they need to stop that somehow. In the area around Newark Airport planes are falling from the sky like rain! I mean you can barely drive through Paterson NJ without some angry looking middle-eastern guy asking you where he can spend $12,000 bucks to get a 65 pound ultra long range target rifle. And impoverished gang-bangers have been lugging them into convenience stores for hold-ups all over the state.
Not that you can blame them. When ammo costs you nine dollars per bullet you have to find a way to make ends meet somehow. Maybe they should consider running for the state legislature instead. God knows that if they can scam their way through that one gun a month law they must be smarter than most of the legislature. Well, smarter than Joan M. Quigley anyway. Not that we’re setting the bar very high. In reality, the 50 caliber rifle hasn't been used in even a single shooting in the history of the state. Not that the legislature will let a little thing like that stand in the way of banning them. After all, as dumb as they all are, they still think they're a whole lot smarter about running your life than you are.
And not a moment too soon for those if us in NJ, for as I type two new laws designed to further restrict the right of law abiding citizens are working their way through the state legislature. In spite of the overwhelming evidence against it's effectiveness at reducing crime, the Assembly yesterday approved a “one gun a month” law, which will limit the number of handguns that can be legally purchased in any 30 day period. It still has to clear the Senate and be signed by the Governor, but with this Senate and that governor, both those events seem likely.
The idiot who proposed this utterly useless law, Joan M. Quigley, thinks that if you own a legally purchased firearm in New Jersey, then obviously you’re also selling guns to gang bangers. That’s why she believes that a law limiting legal purchases to one a month will be effective in fighting crime. She thinks all those pesky claims from citizens rights groups saying that "people who commit crimes with guns don't buy them legally" are all just red herrings that distract from the real issue. Instead she thinks the real problem is those people who go to the trouble of obeying the law. And quite an impressive set of laws they are too. To legally buy a handgun in New Jersey you must complete the following:
First you’ll submit to the 6 month long background check to get a “New Jersey Firearms ID”. That includes presenting several forms of certified ID with photographs, a several month long, painstakingly detailed check for any criminal convictions, a fingerprint scan, and a check for outstanding warrants or unpaid child support, and a reference check. After 6 months if your FID is approved, then you’ll have to submit to an additional check on your fingerprints, and any criminal history or outstanding warrants to get a handgun purchasers permit. Under present law the permit is only good for 90 days and if you don’t use it by then, you’ll have to apply for another permit from scratch. Typically that process takes a minimum of 30 days, leaving you 60 days at most to find a suitable firearm. Once you have both the FID and purchasers permit in hand, you can stroll into any authorized firearms dealer in the state of New Jersey that still sells handguns (I think there are still about 5 left in the entire state) and select a weapon.
Then before you can take the weapon home, the seller must verify your ID with certified identification including a photo; make a copy of your firearms ID, fill out the seller’s portion of the handgun purchaser’s permit with the make model and serial number of the firearm as well as the time, date, and location of the purchase. Then they must also contact the FBI by phone to get a clearance for you through the national instant criminal check system. This system checks nationally for any felony convictions, and outstanding warrants, or any court adjudicated mental health issues. And for the record, it isn’t always instant. I’ve never even been charged with anything worse than a traffic ticket and last time it took 8 days to do my NICS check. And by the way, don't let your shopping go to the last minute because if your handgun purchasers permit expires while you're waiting for your (not so instant) NICS check... guess what.
Then once you’ve done all of that….all you have to do is pay for your weapon and take it home. Now tell me, what nobel-laureate gang-banger could bluff his way through a legal and bureaucratic nightmare like that and then think it’s a good idea to turn around and sell that gun to his felon buddies? If you give her the benefit of the doubt then that’s what Joan Quigley thinks is happening.
But the truth is, I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I believe in Occam’s razor: “that the most obvious cause is almost certainly the one that’s correct”. And after all this time watching the goings on of the New Jersey State government, I think Joan M. Quigley is just another one of those politicians who thinks that the people of New Jersey are too stupid to own firearms. I think she’s really just trying to get rid of all of them, one tiny bureaucratic rule change at a time. I think she’s one more elected official who has nothing but contempt for the people who elected her, and despises the idea of anyone doing things any way but hers.
And unfortunately she isn’t alone. Both of my reps in the assembly (the ever reliable Caroline Cassagrande and Declan O’Scanlon) voted no on this useless nonsense proving that they're both a cut above average in NJ government. The two of them probably double the average IQ in the assembly just by showing up to vote. But my State Senator Jennifer Beck is a gun hating liberal from way back and will probably vote to support the bill. Yes, she has an R next to her name but that hasn’t meant much in New Jersey in a very long time. And because she believes that she knows how to run people’s lives better than they can themselves, she’s going to probably be a part of the problem this time instead of being part of the solution. She’ll ignore the evidence on laws like this and the fact that this will place a preemptive burden on collectors without effecting criminals, and support it anyway.
However, if the supreme court vigorously defends the second amendment tomorrow and “the right to bear arms” can once again be treated the same as “the right of free speech”, then a law like this can be attacked legally as “prior restraint”. That will give constitutional rights organizations lots of ammo to fight it, and over time they certainly will. But in New Jersey it will be a while before those benefits start trickling down. And in the meantime, we’re all going to have to live with one more infringement of our rights.
And if you think this is bad, just wait until the NJ legislature gets caught up and has a chance to vote on a ban of your .50 caliber muzzleloader in order to save airplanes. Because as we know, the 50 caliber rifle is being used in crimes every where you go, and they need to stop that somehow. In the area around Newark Airport planes are falling from the sky like rain! I mean you can barely drive through Paterson NJ without some angry looking middle-eastern guy asking you where he can spend $12,000 bucks to get a 65 pound ultra long range target rifle. And impoverished gang-bangers have been lugging them into convenience stores for hold-ups all over the state.
Not that you can blame them. When ammo costs you nine dollars per bullet you have to find a way to make ends meet somehow. Maybe they should consider running for the state legislature instead. God knows that if they can scam their way through that one gun a month law they must be smarter than most of the legislature. Well, smarter than Joan M. Quigley anyway. Not that we’re setting the bar very high. In reality, the 50 caliber rifle hasn't been used in even a single shooting in the history of the state. Not that the legislature will let a little thing like that stand in the way of banning them. After all, as dumb as they all are, they still think they're a whole lot smarter about running your life than you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
