Christie Rips Apart N.J. Mag Bill

Christie vetoes gun control legislation, Re-writes bill as mental health reform measure

By Art Gallagher |

Calling a bill that would have reduced permitted ammunition magazine sized from 15 rounds to 10 “reform in name only,” Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed A2006   this afternoon.

In his conditional veto message, Christie said the bill follows the well worn path of empty rhetoric, political self-promotion and polarizing intolerance in the face of violent crimes committed with guns:

“Difficult choices are brushed aside
in favor of empty rhetoric. Uncomfortable topics are left
unexplored, while easy soundbites and videoclips are packaged
for consumption. Appropriate empathy for victims, and their
suffering survivors, blurs with politics and elected officials’
self-promotion to create a polarizing intolerance. We ignore
the hard for the expedient, the controversial for the safely
familiar, and the costly for those cheaply recycled answers that
never really address the root causes.”

Christie sent the legislation back to the General Assembly as a bill that he says addresses violence by fixing critical short comings and crack in the mental healthcare system.

Read the rest of this entry »



About the Author

Art Gallagher
Art Gallagher
Art Gallagher is a Highlands businessman, former President at Northern Monmouth Chamber of Commerce and the force behind the very popular Central Jersey political blog

7 Comments on "Christie Rips Apart N.J. Mag Bill"

  1. Joe Schilp via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 8:45 pm |

    But if they agree to the changes, does the magazine size decrease?

  2. John K Haslach via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 8:45 pm |

    You idiots might want to read the USSC decision.

  3. Elaine Marsden via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 8:54 pm |

    The District of Columbia is not the State of New Jersey. Some of us “idiots” believe in states’ rights.

  4. Robert Quagliano via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 9:50 pm |

    He better make higher cap mags legal now

  5. Mark Levy via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 9:57 pm |

    I’m confused who John Haslach is calling “idiots” considering the link brings us to the DC v Heller case, of which SCOTUS rules that 2A is an individual right unconnected to any military service.
    And States “rights” are off the table for anything codified in the BOR. Doesn’t stop the statists from violating it though.
    If a person is deemed trustworthy by way of a background check to own “A” firearm, at what arbitrary number of rounds in a magazine do they become untrustworthy…

  6. Ryan Jairam via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 9:58 pm |

    LOL, I can’t believe someone actually “liked” Elaine’s post, as it is completely and totally incorrect…

  7. Ryan Jairam via Facebook | July 2, 2014 at 10:06 pm |

    DC v Heller clarified that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own a handgun for self defense unconnected with service in a militia. The decision only specifically addressed possession within the home, but did not preclude possession outside the home.

    Chicago decided to ignore the ruling, saying that the 2nd amendment only applied to federal enclaves such as Washington, DC. This was a really silly argument, which is why we later had McDonald v Chicago in 2010. This ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the states, and not just federal enclaves.

    These two supreme court decisions apply to all 50 states. The 2nd Amendment is not a “states rights” issue. Is the bill of rights a states rights issue? Are states allowed to infringe on your fundamental rights? I don’t think so…

Comments are closed.