Help PAFOA with a secret project: Arguments and Research Needed

[awkx]

The Lost/Stolen Gun Reporting Requirement is promoted as making it easier to punish people who straw-purchase handguns for released criminals. But if we're so afraid that a released criminal will get his hands on a gun and commit a violent crime with it, then why the hell did we release him from prison in the first place? The fact is that few violent criminals serve the maximum sentence for the crimes that they committed. Furthermore, prisons, rather than serving to rehabilitate inmates, instead often harden criminal tendencies.

The "Lost/Stolen" law would be a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid. If we want to really address the problem of violent crime in a meaningful way, then we need to address prison reform in a meaningful way and not release criminals early if they're not yet ready to rejoin society and responsibly exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[CommonHighrise]

Is this exercise still going on? Have enough argument material?

Do we get to know what the secret project is yet?

[danp]

Originally Posted by CommonHighrise

Is this exercise still going on? Have enough argument material?

Do we get to know what the secret project is yet?

The project is still ongoing, I have enough material, I just need more hours in the day to finish it.

It is doubtful it will ever be made public what this was for as it would defeat the purpose of the project.

[HiredGoon]

Originally Posted by danp

The project is still ongoing, I have enough material, I just need more hours in the day to finish it.

It is doubtful it will ever be made public what this was for as it would defeat the purpose of the project.

Man, you "gun nuts" and your "secret projects"

J/K..... Good luck, Dan, with whatever it is

[son of the revolution]

Copy of a letter I just distributed and sent out to ALL NJ Senators to help defeat S1774 ( One Gun a Month )


Feb 18th 2009

Dear Senator __________________________


I am writing to you today regarding Senate Bill S 1774 ( One gun a month Bill ) scheduled for a floor vote on Monday Feb 23rd . There are several extremely troubling aspects of this pending legislation that I would like to take the opportunity to draw your attention to , in the hopes you will not support such legislation or similar measures from being passed and made law .
The “ One Gun a Month “ Bill has been marketed to the public as a method of dealing with New Jersey ‘s growing violent crime problem , related to the acquisition by criminal predators and gangs, of firearms to facilitate their criminal activity and preying on law abiding citizens . It purports to attack the issue of so called “ straw purchasers “ or , those people that pass all legal requirements currently in effect in order to purchase multiple firearms at one time to then sell to the criminal element on the black market .
There are several compelling reasons why this type of policy will not and cannot work on the problem it claims to address . First and foremost , it is already a matter of Federal Law , that any Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer is already required to report the sale of multiple firearms to a single purchaser to the Bureau Of Alcohol , Tobacco and Firearms National Tracing Center Database . Therefore , there appears to be no logical reason to enact a redundant State Law , when Federal Law already addresses the issue at hand . It is my understanding that testimoney regarding this fact was presented to the Law and Public Safety Committee.
I am aware of no Legal Precedent , nor example of Legislative Authority , that provides for the imposition of an arbitrary time frame regulating the exercising of one’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights . Senate bill S 1774 would do exactly that and set a dangerous example indeed . Are we next to see rationing of one ‘s 1st Amendment Right to free speech for those that hold unpopular views or opinions and make them known ? Or the rationing of one’s 4th Amendment Right to protection from unlawful search and seizure if one is suspected of a crime one to many times ? In fact , multiple Courts have found that citizens are to be free from any laws that would impose any form of “ prior restraint “ on the exercise of rights . The simplest example of this idea is represented by the well known truism that one is not free to yell “ Fire “ in a public venue , due to the risk of creating panic and potential injury , yet we are not forced to be gagged upon entry into a public place . The proper response is to punish those that abuse our rights and freedoms after they have done so , not impose punishment on the vast majority that have not done anything wrong , nor would never consider doing so . I would respectfully refer you to the Supreme Courts ruling in the case Near V Minnesota as just one example of such rulings .You may also wish to consider that three other States , Virginia , Maryland and South Carolina have all previously enacted , then later repealed various permutations of this type of legislation in recent years . The laws were repealed when it became readily apparent that , while in effect , there was no perceptible impact on reducing the availability of firearms to the criminal element of Society . I would be curious as to what special knowledge the Legislature as a body may be privy to that would lead them to believe the results would be any different in New Jersey, then in the aforementioned States.
In closing , as a law abiding resident of the State of New Jersey it is my most sincere hope that you will focus your legislative efforts where they can have the most meaningful and long lasting impact . By enacting legislation that provides for long term mandatory sentencing for the criminal mis- use of a firearm while in the commission of a violent crime , while abiding by your oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens by not pursuing any further anti gun policies that can have no impact on criminals , but only serve to punish those who have no inclination to commit a crime of any type .
Respectfully,




I also have a copy of a recently released report by the NON BIASED
National Academy of Sciences that examined virtually every aspect of the last twenty years of gun control laws , including but not limited to purchase restrictions , gun buy back , CC/OC Carry , AWB Bans etc .Their conclusion was ...................................NONE of them could acheive that what they set out to accomplish , if anything at all

[LakeCity]

Hi Danp,

Here's a Devil's Advocate argument I've heard in favor of "One Gun a Month" laws:

"The law would reduce the availability of handguns to those who intend to trade or resell them to criminals.

The ease with which people can buy handguns in Pennsylvania attracts gang members from other states.

If Pennsylvania had a "One Gun a Month" law , gangs wouldn’t be coming here to buy a shopping cart full of handguns."

Regards,
LakeCity