New Jersey’s top lawmakers unveiled sweeping gun legislation Thursday that would significantly restrict when and where guns can be carried outside of the home, a bill they touted as “the nation’s strongest measure concerning concealed carry.”
The bill would, among other things, require people wanting to carry guns in public to purchase liability insurance — the first statewide mandate of its kind in the nation should the bill become law — and banning guns from being carried in 25 broad categories, including but not limited to government buildings, health care facilities, airports, casinos and private properties where the owners have not given express permission to have guns. Violations would be deemed a third-degree crime.
October 13, 2022
New Jersey poised to enact ‘nation’s strongest’ gun law after Supreme Court ruling
[Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (and perhaps others) will probably challenge the law:
“These attacks by New Jersey lawmakers on right to carry are a big middle finger to the U.S Supreme Court,” Scott Bach, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “We look forward to overturning these measures in court and forcing the state to pay our legal fees.”
I expect the defiance will only change form until the politicians are slapped with contempt of court consequences which affect them personally and significantly or they are prosecuted. I look forward to their trials and convictions.—Joe]
I remember NY tried to (or did?) outlaw such insurance, calling it “murder insurance” or some such slander. So I wonder if NJ did the same thing. It wouldn’t be the first time that politicians required the purchase of non-existent insurance. (Skydivers know of things like that.)
An article in the WSJ last week about this proposal quoted a NJ insurance industry weenie about that kind of insurance. He said (roughly) that it exists, is considered “specialized insurance” and is not currently offered by any of his insurance industry members.
If it’s not offered I wonder what “exists” means to him.
Yeah, I was hoping someone would comment on that. I don’t think insurance will cover deliberate or criminal acts, so what is the intent here? Complete blockage is my hypothesis.
By any reasonable analysis, the cost of such liability insurance would basically be a nominal annual fee to file and process the paperwork, because the insurance company would never have to pay out for just about any scenario that the anti-gunners have hypothesized.
If the actual owner of a firearm uses the gun to commit a crime, they don’t pay.
If a third party takes the gun and commits a crime, they don’t pay.
Whoever picks up the gun assumes the liability of negligent behavior, intentional or otherwise.
So, the only reason the insurance company would have to pay is if the gun spontaneously went off without any person manipulating it and injuring someone or damaging something that wouldn’t be covered by other kinds of insurance. Insurers aren’t liable for deliberate acts. They also aren’t liable for true “acts of God”, such as the sear of an otherwise completely reliable firearm breaking, untouched, at a special moment.
What, exactly, is the proposed liability of the insurer? What is the frequency of such occurrences? What is the typical cost of damages in that case? Find those numbers, multiply them together, put a percentage on top for profit of the insurer and you get… as close to zero dollars as makes no difference. You could include the cost of liability insurance of this kind in the annual or lifetime membership to the NRA, GOA, SAF or the state affiliates thereof.
In other words, the mandate solves no problems, and the imposition is the punishment itself.
The funny part is by the states continued ignorance. The harder the court will have to examine the 2A. And it’s simple understandings will be harder to ignore.
Seems their cutting their own throat. And de-legitimizing their own authority.
And yes. Contempt charges would be a wonderful tool.
If the repubs actually had a spine and a will to use it.
Didn’t a judge already knock down NY’s very similar law?
Probably. Then again, a consistent theme I’ve seen on the blogosphere today is that Leftists are like children. They aren’t able to plan ahead more than a couple steps; one description is that they act without asking themselves the question, “And then what?”
So if NY’s “gun owner liability insurance” mandate got slapped down, NJ is going to try it, too. Like the kindergartner who sees another kid act up and get punished, has to try it him/her self; they must be thinking, “Surely, the grown-up won’t punish me.”
From that childish belief grows the other ostensible-adult Leftist tendency: “It’s OK when we do it.”
Another example: SCOTUS ruled in Heller that no government can ban a whole class of firearms “in common use for lawful purposes”. Not even if other classes of firearms are available and allowed. Yet multiple states are trying to pass or expand bans on a loosely-defined whole class of firearms they call “assault weapons”.
“Just because D.C. got slapped, surely SCOTUS won’t slap us.” and “It’s OK when we do it.”
The solution is obvious, they need to glue themselves to that statue outside the UN building.
In this way, problems will obviously be solved.
Don’t ask me to explain how, I’m not a rocket surgeon.
“We look forward to overturning these measures in court and forcing the state to pay our legal fees.”
Yeah, the same old crap. They infringe, we sue, we win, we get a couple bucks back to cover the expenses, then they infringe again. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.
It’s time to go beyond that, way beyond. 18 USC 242 should be just a starting point; direct personal liability, in the form of the first dollars for “plaintiff expenses reimbursed” needs to come from officials’ pockets and private holdings because they should have known the law they passed was illegitimate and unconstitutional when they did it.
As long as they can skate on responsibility and liability and fall back on taxpayers’ money to cover expenses they will continue to do it. Sell everything they own, right down to stark naked and disburse those funds to plaintiffs first then dig into taxpayers’ pockets, then throw them in the slammer for a 10-15 year bit and This.Will.Stop.
Until then, we’re just performing serial self-flagellation and patting ourselves on the back for it.
Don’t forget selling of their organs, skin, etc. Those are assets too.
“Nobody needs a 30-round magazine,” they say.
Well, nobody needs two functioning kidneys, either.
And those 28-32 teeth in their mouths (depending on third molars, a.k.a. “wisdom teeth”) are far too many. They should be classified as “high capacity chewing devices” and prohibited for public safety, no grandfathering. After all, “If you can’t eat it with 10 teeth, you just suck at eating!”
Ten fingers are generally grandfathered in, but I don’t see why we can’t make like the NY “SAFE” Act and restrict these people to the use of seven. Which three can we permanently bind up so they can’t be used?
Well, maybe, assuming SCOTUS doesn’t take issue with it under the “cruel and unusual” prohibition.
Thing is, there is such a thing as “personal liability.” See: Florida – the legislature established exactly such personal liability for violating the state’s preemption law. Should a local official enact local laws placing additional local restrictions on firearms in violation of the legislature’s statutory establishment of itself as the sole arbiter of firearms restrictions in Florida – eg., the state’s preemption statute – the individual official is personally liable for up to $5000 USD in damages per occurrence, emphasis on the personally liable part, meaning “not paid from public funds.”
Meaning it comes directly from the mayor’s pocket, not the taxpayers.
So, yeah, if SCOTUS grants Constitutional approval I’m all for industrial scale organ harvesting from politicians – damn near every f**king one deserves it, and more – but let’s start with destroying them financially first and build from there, if for no other reason than it’s statutorily easier and already established in states like Florida. Could be that the first dozen or so provide enough of an educational lesson that the remainder, even those still vehemently opposed to Constitutional civil liberties, cease acting that way.
From acorns are mighty oaks built and all that.
“Don’t forget selling of their organs, skin, etc. Those are assets too.” Joe.
“Well, maybe, assuming SCOTUS doesn’t take issue with it under the “cruel and unusual” prohibition.”
Can’t we just do it, then have them fight in court to get them back? Isn’t that how they do it?
I suppose we could but I’d bet the default setting for Dems and Liberals (redundancy alert) is “fully vaxxed” and thoroughly contaminated with whatever the drug du jour happens to be.
I already sign the “no transfusion” form every time because I refused the vax and don’t want it second-hand either.
You want a THC-infused liver for a transplant, or tissue pre-contaiminated by pink and blue hair dye, be my guest. Me, I prefer the smell of decomp in the morning….as long as it’s in someone else’s neighborhood (which is one of the reasons Boomershoot is so important – decomp on your doorstep sucks (pistols) but 800 meters out (rifles) it’s less objectionable).