Democrats Guide Package of Gun-Control Bills Through the Assembly

[SecularMotion]

Regardless of where they stand on gun control, the audience in the packed Statehouse gallery witnessed a small piece of history yesterday, as Democratic leaders passed a package of 22 bills that impose new curbs on access to guns, as well as other gun-related legislation.

Many of the bills were approved with little or no Republican support in the Assembly. The package now heads to the Senate for passage.

At this point, the key question is what will Gov. Chris Christie do when the bills land on his desk. Last month, he created a bipartisan task force to look at the issue of gun violence and asked for a report within the coming month. If the task force meets its deadline, it would be within the 45 days Christie has to either veto or sign the legislation.

The measures range from tighter requirements for background checks; proof of safety training before purchasing a firearm; a reduction in the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds; to a stipulation that ammunition sales and transfers be conducted face to face. One bill disqualifies certain people -- like those on the federal Terrorist Watchlist -- from buying guns. Another prohibits the state from investing in companies that manufacture, import, or sell assault weapons to civilians.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/02/22/spotlight-tv-democrats-guide-package-of-gun-control-bills-through-the-assembly/

[hack89]

1. Do you notice how everyone is backing away from assault weapons bans?

I guess 1994 is still having an impact.

[SecularMotion]

3. Please stop spreading NRA lies on DU

The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part III: Two Elections The NRA Did Not Win

What Really Happened in 1994

All myths have a genesis story, and this one begins in the early 1990s. The first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency saw an unusual number of controversial legislative battles – the gays-in-the-military debate resulting in the creation of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 budget with its upper-income tax increases, the unsuccessful attempt at health care reform, NAFTA, and the passage of an omnibus crime bill, which included a ban on the sale of assault weapons. When Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 elections, the NRA immediately claimed credit for the GOP landslide, and many Democrats agreed. Bill Clinton himself validated the NRA’s argument in January 1995 when he told a reporter, “The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress. The NRA is the reason Republicans control the House.”

Indeed, not a single incumbent Republican lost in 1994. But how much credit can the NRA claim for the GOP’s success? Studies by political scientists addressing this question produce the following conclusion: some, but nowhere near the Republicans’ margin of victory that year.

One study directly examined the effect of the NRA in that election. This research, by Christopher Kenny, Michael McBurnett, and David Bordua, examined NRA endorsements and election results in 1994 and 1996, and did find an impact of those endorsements – but determined that that impact was limited and highly conditional. Their results showed that an NRA endorsement helped Republican challengers to a small degree in 1994, but had almost no impact for Democrats who were endorsed, Republican incumbents who were endorsed, or any kind of candidate in 1996. These results, as well as the magnitude of the effect they found – about a 2-point boost for Republican challengers, but nothing for anyone else – were almost exactly what I found in my analysis of the 2004-2010 congressional elections.

As I explained in that analysis, there were few races in the last four congressional elections where such a boost from an NRA endorsement would have made a difference – only four races, in fact, out of the 1,038 times the NRA endorsed House candidates. In 1994, however, there were an unusual number of close races, and 12 Republican challengers won by a margin of 4 points or less. Of those, nine were endorsed by the NRA. The GOP needed a net gain of 41 seats to take control of the House, and their actual net gain on election night was 54 seats. So even if we were to attribute every last one of those nine victories to the NRA and assume that without the organization each race would have gone Democratic – an extremely generous assumption – the Republicans would still have gained 45 seats and won control of the House.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/22/430560/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iii-two-elections-the-nra-did-not-win/

[hack89]

4. It is not a lie. Even the VP says there will be no AWB

Why didn't Colorado even attempt an AWB? Oregon Dems said they will not attempt to pass one.

Can you explain why AWBs are off the table?

My reference to 1994 was how it produced a large and vigorous gun rights movement in America. One that seems to still have the upper hand. It has nothing to do with the NRA - only a tiny fraction of gun owners are NRA members. But they still vote and that is what politicians are paying attention to.

[SecularMotion]

5. The NRA lie is that Democrats lost congress in 1994 as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban

I'm not sure reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban is necessary if we can get restrictions on large capacity magazines.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022376431

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. That is not what the Big Dog and other say

[hack89]

7. My point is that there is little political support for an AWB

at both the federal and state level.

How does a magazine ban make a difference when it is still perfectly legal to own high capacity mags? Those 30 round mags in my gun safe will still be perfectly legal. Considering that there are hundreds of millions of these mags and how rare mass shootings are, I don't see how it will make an appreciable difference.

[SecularMotion]

8. There is less support for a new AWB than for restricting magazines and expanding background checks.

At the very least, banning the manufacture and sale of large capacity magazines would be a good start. Existing large capacity magazines would become obsolete over time.

[hack89]

9. A hundred years from now perhaps.

by then who knows what kind of weapons we will be shooting.

It is just a feel good law that does nothing to make us safer.

[SecularMotion]

10. " It is just a feel good law that does nothing to make us safer."

That's what the NRA keeps telling us.

[hack89]

12. So more guns does not equal more deaths?

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

when the country is full of semiautomatic weapons with standard capacity mags and the law takes none of them out of circulation, just how does that make us safer tomorrow? Next month? Next year? Next decade?


30 years from now there will be even more "assault rifles" in America - even if half of them have 10 round mags, why do you think America will be safer?

[SecularMotion]

13. Times are changing. You're assuming there will still be a RKBA 30 years from now.

[hack89]

14. No reason to think otherwise

based on what is happening right now in America.

[gejohnston]

15. no reason to assume there won't be

it is easier to add liberties in the US than subtract them. True times change, and political re alignments happen. The party system could crash by then too.
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4576

[SecularMotion]

16. Key Findings from the Poll of High School and College Students

Key Findings from the Poll of High School and College Students:

• About 50 percent of young people who self-identify as “depressed,” “stressed out,” and/or have “difficulty making friends” plan to have a gun in their household.

• High school students who regularly play video games for more than 4 hours per day are 50 percent more likely than those who do not typically play video games to report plans to own a gun. The results are similar among college students.

• Girls and young women (40 percent) are more likely than their male counterparts (32 percent) to fear gun violence and less likely to report planning to own a gun in the future.

• Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to fear gun violence (45 percent compared to 25 percent) and less likely to report planning on owning a gun in the future.

• Half of black respondents fear gun violence, compared to only 31 percent of white respondents. Blacks are less likely than whites to report planning on owning a gun in the future.

http://www.american.edu/media/news/20120114_Gun_Poll_High_School_College_Students.cfm

[gejohnston]

17. the first number changes after leaving high school

because high school is stressful and depressing. Since they can't legally buy a gun in high school, the point?

The last four isn't really relevant to the discussion. It is relevant if we are discussing if the shooting sports community needs to do better outreach. The 60 percent number is relevant.

[SecularMotion]

18. The point is the 60% number is irrelevant

Not everyone in high school or college who says they want a gun will be able to legally own one and probably shouldn't own a gun.

[gejohnston]

19. people in high school can't

four examples were groups of people who are less likely to want to. Outside of those prohibited by due process, opinions of either of us think should or shouldn't doesn't matter, as it should be.

[pipoman]

2. It amazes me how many Democrats

support the whole disqualification of people on shrub's terrorist watch list after proclaiming the watch list to violate due process when applied to other freedoms...I guess it is only bad if you like who it's being hoisted upon, eh?

[Eleanors38]

11. Most Democrats oppose the Terror Watch List as a violation of the 5th...

Except when it comes to guns

Then, majic! The 5th Amendment goes away!

[madville]

20. I hope Christie does sign the laws

That will kill his Republican primary chances in 2016. Of course then he could switch parties or make an independent run.

[gejohnston]

21. Oh I don't know,

look at Mitt.