New Jersey Governor Chris Christie claims to be a conservative Republican although he acts more like a liberal Democrat. The piece of legislation sitting on his desk will tell us which way he really leans.
The New Jersey House and Senate have passed a bill – A2006. According to the synopsis on the bill it:
“Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds; exempts firearms with .22 caliber tubular magazines from 10 round limitation.”
Prior to this bill, magazine capacity was 15 rounds. State lawmakers believe that reducing the magazine capacity will help prevent mass shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary School.
A number of rifles used for hunting and target shooting would be deemed illegal according to this bill. For example, the Ruger K-Mini-14/5F fires .223 caliber shells. It is often used for both small and larger game hunting. Three of the models of this gun only hold 5 rounds. You would think that it would be okay under the new law, but under Section 2C:39-1:w “Assault firearm” the Ruger K-Mini-14/5F is listed along with the Colt AR-15 and M1 carbine among others which are banned from ownership.
So I have to ask how will the New Jersey bill reduce mass shootings? They forget that Adam Lanza had more than one gun. The same is true with most school shootings. The villains generally have two or more guns plus extra loaded magazines with them.
Limiting the capacity of a magazine does nothing to thwart criminals who are determined to carry out their horrific crimes. In fact, they don’t always work in limiting the ability of law abiding hunters.
When I was in college, I used to go duck hunting with a school mate and good friend. He is one of the most naturally gifted shooters I’ve ever known. Arizona law only allowed 3 shells in a shotgun, so when Jim went duck hunting, he had his standard 12 gauge semi-automatic with a 3 shot capacity and his 12 gauge side-by-side shotgun. On more than one occasion, Jim would empty the semi-auto and then pick up the side-by-side and crank off two more rounds before the ducks were out of range. I’ve seen Jim drop 4-5 ducks at a time, filling his limit along with mine, allowing us to get home, clean the ducks and make it for 9:40 classes.
My point is that if there is a will to get around a limit on magazine capacity, people will find it. In Jim’s case, the law didn’t restrict how many guns he could use, so he used more than one. In the case of Adam Lanza he used more than one gun. In the 1999 Columbine shootings, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used an Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun, 99 explosives and 4 knives.
Did you know that very few murders are committed with rifles? All the talk about banning assault and assault style rifles is a smoke screen designed to restrict gun ownership of any kind.
I also found it interesting that the bill exempts .22 caliber rifles with tubular magazines. I wonder if they realize that a number of contract killings use .22 caliber guns, generally handguns? The reason they do is that a .22 quickly loses velocity and energy once it penetrates a person’s skull. Quite often, it doesn’t have the force to come out the other side and will bounce around inside the skull, doing damage to the brain and helping to kill the victim. So .22 caliber rifles holding more than 10 rounds in a tubular magazine are still okay. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment advocates who are pushing for A2006 to be signed into law are not concerned about the actual magazine capacity as much as they are working towards their agenda. First they restricted magazine capacity to 15 rounds and now they are restricting the capacity to 10 rounds. When will they work to drop that to 5 rounds, banning even more guns used for hunting and target shooting? Then where will they go next?
Step by step they’ll ban more and more guns until it’s impossible to own any and that is the agenda behind A2006. Now the question is whether or not Christie will sign the bill into law or veto it? If he signs it into law, we have further proof that he is a liberal Democrat in disguise.