Earlier today, someone from NRA contacted me re my post here, saying they were aware of the problem with the dealers that’s inherent in the One-Gun-a-Month bill, and presented it to legislators, had their concerns dismissed. Evan Nappen is now on Cam and Company saying basically the same thing. Legislators who advocated for this bill were told, and just did not care. Corzine was going to ram this turd through, and consequences to gun owners be damned.
8 thoughts on “Clarification”
Comments are closed.
Did they happen to give a reason as to why this issue was not included in any alerts, or made more public? Might have gotten some folks off their duff if it was.
Oh, forgot, what are your thoughts on a lawsuit to fight this?
The person I talked to said they focused their alerts more on the aspects that would directly affect members. It was conceded that it probably would have been a good idea to put this material into the alerts. I think it should have been. This has the potential to affect members more than any other aspect of the bill. Few people in NJ can buy one gun a month, practically.
Oh, forgot, what are your thoughts on a lawsuit to fight this?
What kind of lawsuit?
The dealers and distributors may have a cause of action – it’s their businesses that are going to be destroyed. Other than that, it’s going to have to wait for the 2A to be incorporated. At which point much of NJ’s firearms control structure will come tumbling down.
Sebastian @ 12:28a:
Not sure what kind of lawsuit. I’d say this is definite infringement, but I think Ian Argent has a point, it might be up to the retailers to do something.
If Bob Viden is the head honcho of the NJ Chapter of the Association of Firearms Retailers, maybe he would have some insight. Unfortunately, I don’t know him. So I feel out of place cold calling….
Technically, FFLs can receive firearms via the mails from other FFLs out of state, no? I suppose the dealers could buy from other out-of-state dealers.
This doesn’t help much, though