Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Cops

Why is Wayne LaPierre Still Controlling the NRA? LTC West as Replacement?

Leadership Board of Directors Compass iStock-donskarpo 490990815.jpg

iStock-donskarpo

Tombstone, AZ- -(Ammoland.com)- On May 2, 2022, the New York Attorney General’s Office filed its Second Amended Complaint against the National Rifle Association.

Not only the Association but its Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre, Secretary, and General Counsel John Frazer, Former Treasurer and CFO Wilson “Woody” Philips, and Former Deputy CEO Josh Powell.

As with the original complaint and the previous amended complaint, this one is full of very specific, largely verifiable, and utterly damning charges against NRA’s top officers and executives. Many of the previous accusations have been admitted to by some of the various parties, while Woody Phillips has refused to answer most questions, based on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

It needs to be understood that LaPierre and the others are not named in the suit based on their positions within the NRA, as when someone sues a state and names the Attorney General or the governor as a representative of the state. The four named defendants were named for specific actions each is accused of, and the NRA itself is named for failing to stop them. With that in mind, legal experts said early on that the NRA’s best defense against the suit would be to adopt the following policies:

  • Remove the named defendants from any position of power within the Association – particularly any position that would allow any of them to have any oversight or influence over the Association’s legal strategy in battling the suit.
  • Initiate a thorough internal investigation by a Board-appointed committee with the power to get answers to its questions.
  • Adopt a policy of full cooperation and transparency working with state regulators.
    Institute strict policy and oversight rules to correct and avoid future problems, that would be backed up by consequential enforcement.
  • Plead victim status to the court, declaring that, if the named defendants (or others) abused their positions, then the NRA was the victim, not the perpetrator, and therefore should not be penalized.

A genuine response to the allegations would go a long way toward blunting the very real political motivations involved in the suit. New York Attorney General Letitia James is a highly motivated political actor, and she has not been shy about expressing her animosity toward the NRA, its mission, and its members. The Association should deal cautiously with her office, and request that the judge make sure that this personal and political bias doesn’t taint the case or cause undue injury to the Association.

This animosity on the part of AG James has actually been one of the strongest arguments from defenders and apologists of Wayne LaPierre. They point to James’s hatred of the NRA, and her political ambitions, and conclude that the whole case is just trumped-up lies and political theater.

The problem with that assertion is that LaPierre himself has admitted under oath that most of the charges against him are true.

He admits to billing the NRA for personal travel for himself and his family. He admits to improperly accepting gifts from major vendors, and awarding those same vendors multi-million-dollar contracts with no competitive bidding. He admits to giving multi-million-dollar severance packages to retiring and even fired employees, usually in exchange for them signing a strict nondisclosure agreement about NRA activities.

And he admits to giving contracts to family members and former staffers, often with little or no performance requirement attached. He also admits to doing all of this without clearing it, or even reporting it, through or to, the NRA Board, as required by state law and NRA policy.

His main defense in all of this, is to claim that either, it wasn’t improper, he didn’t know it was improper, and/or he didn’t know what other people were doing. Not a very impressive defense from a CEO who’s being paid in excess of $1.6 million per year.

One is reminded of Bart Simpson’s all-purpose defense: “Nobody saw me! I wasn’t there! You can’t prove a thing!”

So the big question is: Why is Wayne LaPierre still controlling the NRA?

Why would any organization facing existential threats – most of those threats based on accusations of misconduct and dereliction on the part of its chief executive – allow that executive to continue to hold inordinate sway over the organization? And why would any organization facing this kind of turmoil in its executive offices allow that same executive to retain control over the legal strategy of the organization in addressing the charges?

An equally perplexing question, is why the Board has so far not even attempted to rein in its rogue executives?

As noted above, NY AG Letitia James hates the NRA and all it stands for, and she wants to see it destroyed. The judge in the case has already taken dissolution of the Association off the table as a potential punishment, should the AG win her case. Her latest Amended Complaint focuses less on the NRA as a target, and more on the officers and directors – as it should – with the complaint calling for severe financial penalties and restitution payments from the Association’s wayward “leaders.” The complaint calls for the removal of LaPierre and his followers, but only as part of the penalty phase of the trial. That isn’t going to happen until sometime next year.

Meanwhile, LaPierre and company remain in control of the Associations resources, and most importantly, in control of its legal strategy – which amounts to shoveling millions of dollars into the pockets of New York lawyer William Brewer, who was originally hired by LaPierre to head off a threatened lawsuit from the NY AG back in 2018. Obviously Brewer failed in that mission, but he’s been very successful at extracting cash from the Association.

Brewer has reportedly been drawing over $2 million per month, averaging around $30 million per year, for the past 3 years. At the same time, NRA membership numbers have been in a nosedive, fundraising has collapsed, and the Association has cut practically all of its core programs to the bone.

If LaPierre and his enablers were to be removed from power now, the Association might do what they should have done from the beginning: Claim victim status and reorganize, without the crippling payments to the Brewer law firm. With that, they should be able to start recovering membership and see improvements in their fundraising, not to mention begin to recover the trust of its members. But that would not be seen as a good thing by Letitia James. Those steep legal bills, along with the potential of a court-mandated lawsuit against the NRA from the NRA Foundation, if things go as expected in a lawsuit filed by the AG of Washington DC, could totally bankrupt the NRA, and that would be a big win for Letitia James.

I’m not an attorney, but I’ve spoken with knowledgeable attorneys, and they keep coming back to the need for the NRA to distance itself from the accused “leaders,” even if only with temporary furloughs or compartmentalizing them away from certain aspects of the Association, particularly the legal strategy. They have also suggested that the NY AG could – and should – force this action by filing a request for partial summary judgment based on the admissions already submitted by LaPierre and some of his supporters. LaPierre has admitted to a variety of offenses, any one of which would fully justify his removal from office. Other NRA “leaders” have also admitted to various transgressions and failures in their fiduciary duties. With those admissions, it should not be difficult to convince the judge to remove LaPierre and the offending officers on the basis that they are using the NRA’s resources to protect LaPierre and themselves, rather than fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to the NRA and its members.

Wayne LaPierre, along with NRA President Charles Cotton, 1st VP Willes Lee, and 2nd VP David Coy, should be the subjects of a motion pointing out that they have all admitted to actions that should disqualify them from participating in the management of the Association, and especially anything to do with setting legal strategy.

If protecting the assets and interests of the Association’s members is of any concern at all to the attorneys in the NY AG’s Office – as the law states are their primary obligation – then they would have such a motion filed within days.

While we would hope that such a motion would be filed and addressed by the court prior to the Members’ Meeting in Houston on May 28, 2022, that seems unlikely, so NRA members must press the attack from different directions. The primary tactic must be to pressure NRA Directors to do what they should have done at least three years ago: Remove Wayne LaPierre. The best opportunity for the Board to take this action will be at the Board meeting on Monday following the Members’ Meeting. At that time, it will only take a simple majority of Directors to elect new leadership.

New NRA Leadership ~ LTC Allen West?

A group of concerned NRA members, including former and current members of the Board of Directors, want to draft former Director, LTC Allen West to run for the Executive Vice President position at the meeting in Houston. West has the support of many and could work with reformers to clean up the NRA and get it back on the right track, and he has a record of integrity and effectiveness.

Along with electing LTC West to the position of Executive Vice President, the Board needs to elect a slate of officers to back West in his reform efforts, and to lead the NRA’s legal strategy going forward. All of this makes it absolutely critical that every NRA Director attend the meetings in Houston, and be prepared to stand up for the membership. It’s equally critical that NRA members attend the Members’ Meeting on Saturday the 28th, 2022, to call out the lies and corruption, and to put some starch into the backs of the Directors. We also have a campaign underway to recruit, nominate, and elect a slate of reform candidates for the Board of Directors in the 2023 election.

Much more information about all of this is posted on our website, www.FirearmsCoalition.org, with both the first and second Amended Complaints, along with the Responses to the first one from LaPierre and the NRA. It’s a lot to digest, but it’s critical reading for anyone concerned about the future of the NRA.

I hope to see you in Houston.


NYS Second Amended Complaint against the National Rifle Association, May 2022

2020 People of the State of NY v NRA & Co May 2022 Amended


About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Manly Stuff

Any ideas on WTF is this thing?

When could mentor doesn't realize that there camera pieces. : r/facepalm

Categories
Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Poor Canada!

ak47 Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

Guns in Canada - Imgflip

Canadian firearms owners taking gov't to court. Fund raising link inside. -  Page 5 - AR15.COM

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

Can “Pro-Gun” Democrats Be Trusted? by Dan Wos (Can any Pol be “trusted” ? – Sorry I was too busy laughing like a Hyena!)

Biden-Truth NRA-ILA
Biden’s plan is the same as ever: gun control. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- From time to time, the topic comes up in which we are tasked with deciding if a Democrat deserves our vote based primarily on their support of the 2nd Amendment. I was in a discussion about this topic and realized that there’s a major problem with this.

Often, we hear Democrats announce that they are “gun-owners” and/or “hunters” prior to some sort of anti-gun statement. I have my doubts as to whether their “gun ownership” amounts to much more than a dusty old war rifle that grandpa left in the attic and their implication to be “one of us” is often a tactic used to gain some sort of “authority” in a gun-control debate, but let’s look at this from a practical perspective.

If I were to support a Democrat who claims to be “pro-gun,” (whether that be a Senator, Representative or even the President,) what other policies am I inadvertently supporting, and how high on the hierarchical scale of values are gun rights for this person?

Show me a Democrat who claims they don’t support universal background checks, red flag laws, magazine capacity restrictions, waiting periods, 21-year-old age requirements, semi-automatic rifle bans, bump-stock bans, suppressor bans, forced reset trigger bans & suing manufacturers out of business, and I will show you a liar.

What makes them a Democrat? Isn’t the very reason they vote on the left, to support the policies of those on the left? How many more left-wing policies do you want your children and grandchildren to be burdened with? Is it likely that they will actually go against their party on gun rights when you need them to? Have you ever seen that happen, and in the rare case it might, where else are they compromising your values? Some strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment are willing to support a Democrat who claims to support gun rights. Is this because they believe we are converting them? Good luck with that. The real question is, what else are we getting in that dysfunctional social package?

In an announcement on April, 11, 2022, on “ghost guns,” Joe Biden revealed this exact hypocrisy when he called firearms dealers “merchants of death,” yelled and screamed about “weapons of war” and then went on to say, “and by the way. It’s gonna sound bizarre. I support the 2nd Amendment.”

When we support a so-called “pro 2nd Amendment Democrat,” are we also supporting their position on open borders, abortion, CRT, bisexual bathrooms, “sex-ed” for Kindergarteners, the termination of oil drilling in America, the green new deal, ESG, the early release of prisoners, bail reform, never-ending medical mandates, the defunding of our police departments, welfare dependency and the overall forfeiture of our basic ability to make our own decisions? Because if so, I’m out.

So why are any of us being asked to put at risk, and most likely compromise, traditional American values and Conservative beliefs, just to get a “2A-friendly” vote in Congress by some politician who claims to support our gun rights? (Which by the way, probably wouldn’t happen when it comes down to actual voting behavior due to massive Congressional pressure from their peers.) Could it be Democrats recognize how strong the 2nd Amendment is and how protective of it, most Americans are? Could presenting a so-called “pro-gun Democrat,” be a way of coercing Republicans into unwittingly compromising at the voting booth with the hopes of saving our 2nd Amendment?

Sorry. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate or compromise.

When I hear people suggesting that I should support a Democrat because they are “pro-gun,” I smell a rat. I have a problem trusting most Republicans with the 2nd Amendment. Now you’re asking me to vote for a Democrat? I don’t think so.


About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

LAPD chief blames guns for California’s gun control failures By Tom Knighton (Gee I am so “shocked” by this! Grumpy)

(AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
California has the toughest state-level gun control laws in the nation. They heavily restrict pretty much every category of firearm imaginable and they’re constantly looking at how they can further restrict them.

And yet, cities in the state aren’t necessarily safer than anywhere else in the nation.

Despite that, the chief of the LAPD blames…wait for it…guns.

Thirty-four people were shot in Los Angeles last week, a bloody spike in what is already shaping up to be a violent month and year in the City of Angels, according to authorities.

 

The bulk of the shootings — 23 — of them occurred in a “remarkably small area” of the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street and Southeast divisions, Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission Tuesday. Moore called last week a “troubling week,” in a year when violent crime has increased 7.1% year-to-date. So far this year, the LAPD has responded to 575 more violent crimes than this time last year.

 

Barely halfway through the month, 70 people have already been shot in Los Angeles, up from 55 during the same period last year. There have been 107 homicides so far in 2022, while at this point in 2021 there were 109.

 

While the number has decreased slightly in 2022, Moore said it represents a 37% increase over a two-year period. Overall, violent crime — aggravated assaults, street robberies, and commercial robberies — have climbed 15.2 percent over a two-year period.

“The problem that we have throughout Los Angeles is too many guns in too many hands,” Moore said, reiterating a belief he frequently shares with the commission. The added enforcement in the 77th Street Division resulted in 16 gun arrests involving 20 firearms, including “a number of assault rifles,” Moore said.

So, the issue is guns in the most heavily gun-controlled state in the nation?

Sounds to me an awful lot like all the copious amounts of gun control has managed to accomplish is just make the state more hostile toward law-abiding gun owners, rather than actually do much to curb gun possession by violent criminals.

This isn’t much different than the gang heyday of the 1990s when LA was the epicenter of criminal culture.

Since then, the state has passed tons of gun control, ostensibly to impact those same criminals.

As we can see, it worked like a charm.

Look, I get the desire to do something. I also get that people think the problem is the wrong people having guns. I’m not going to argue about armed criminals.

But the laws on the books were designed to stop precisely them from having them, yet it doesn’t appear to have accomplished a blasted thing. Meanwhile, Californians who want to comply with the law are treated like criminals for even wanting a firearm.

It’s just not right.

Then again, it’s never been right to restrict the rights of the ordinary citizen because of the actions of a handful of criminals.

Yet when the LAPD chief talks about too many guns in too many hands rather than the wrong hands, what do you think he’s proposing? Is he acknowledging that gun control has failed the state, or do you think he’s suggesting more of the same?

Well, since he says the problem is “too many hands” and nothing about criminals in possession, it’s clear where he stands on the issue.

It’s also clear that more of the same isn’t going to make things better.

————————————————————
By the way, 77th Station is right in the middle of the meanest, toughest Gang Neighborhood in Southern California. I should know as I got a lot of students from there for my class in Juvenile Hall. Grumpy

 

 

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Bill allowing gun lawsuits in California passes committee By Tom Knighton (The only ones who will win from this is the Lawyers! Grumpy)

Daniel6D / Pixabay
Federal law says that you cannot sue a gun company or licensed dealer for the actions of a third party unless they somehow broke the law in providing that firearm. It’s been on the books for years now, even if anti-gunners don’t like it.

However, California has decided to model a bill after the Texas law that allows people to sue abortion providers that would, in theory, circumvent precisely that law.

And now, it’s passed committee.

 In response to recent gun violence across the state and nation, lawmakers are pushing ahead with efforts to strengthen gun laws in California.

Two bills aiming to bolster California’s gun laws cleared key committees on Tuesday.

“While in California we pride ourselves having fairly strict gun control laws, we’ve done better than other states but still, not good enough,” said Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco.

Assembly Bill 1594 passed its first hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee in a 7-2 vote.

The bill would allow private citizens, local governments and the state attorney general to sue gun makers and sellers. Supporters said the measure would make sure the gun industry faces accountability like every other industry.

“I don’t think it’s very fair that the toy industry has a lot more liability than the gun industry,” Ting said.

Except, that’s not remotely accurate.

If a firearm malfunctions and causes injury, it can be sued just like any other company can if its product malfunctions and causes harm.

What protections it has only protect them from lawsuits stemming from the actions of other parties. In other words, you can’t sue Glock because a criminal with a Glock shot you unless you can show Glock did something wrong that contributed to that shooting.

California is trying to run an end-around that law and pretending their holding gun companies to the same standards.

However, as gun rights advocates have pointed out for years, no one is trying to sue Toyota for drunk drivers.

In other words, yes, gun companies have protections other companies don’t have, but only because they’ve needed protections other industries haven’t.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see this law surviving challenge because federal law supersedes it.

Yet that’s going to be a costly fight that shouldn’t have to be waged. Further, since few criminals are lawfully buying guns, it’s clearly not the place to look.

Then again, this is California. They’re not known for disagreeing with gun control measures. They’ll pass this not because they think it’ll make the state safer, but because they just don’t want people being able to buy guns in the state.

If they can make it more costly to do business in California, they may well hope that companies will just opt not to sell guns in California.

Then again, with the rules already in place, not many actually are.

Frankly, this law is going to be a complete trainwreck and I really, really wish the state of California could be punished for passing it knowing damn good and well it goes beyond their authority. Since they can’t, we’ll just have to be content to see it overturned by the courts.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Weird huh?

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

From CRPA – New Guidance on Shooting Range Regulations & Toxic Waste

Great news for Gun Ranges in California! CRPA and our attorneys have been working on an issue that many may not know anything about. It has to do with shooting ranges and how they handle contaminated soil. In an abrupt turnaround, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) changed its position on allowing shooting ranges to return residual soil taken from backstops and shot fall zones back to where it came from after lead reclamation projects.

After over seven years of legal pressure, lobbying, and negotiations between the DTSC, CRPA, NRA and their law firm, Michel & Associates, this month DTSC finally adopted EPA’s Guidance Document allowing lead impacted soil to be returned to the range after recycling. This is a huge win for shooting ranges in California and one that should help ranges save a lot of money while staying within the regulatory environmental requirements.

DTSC had initially planned to publish an internal guidance document outlining all the California regulations that apply to the operation of a shooting range including how to dispose of soil after lead reclamation, which they consider “hazardous waste.” In numerous meetings with DTSC personnel on the topic, DTSC confirmed that it initially would not adopt the EPA Guidance Document recommendation as it applies to residual soil. We worked to informed DTSC of the unintended consequences of requiring ranges to dispose of this soil after lead reclamation as hazardous waste.

At first, DTSC was unpersuaded and maintained its position stating that it could not follow EPA’s Guidance Document because of federal pre-emption, which does not allow California to enforce hazardous waste laws in a less stringent manner that federal law, as EPA’s Guidance Document was only guidance and not federal law. Additionally, DTSC cited California law that they understood as mandating soil to be hazardous waste if lead was present.

As a result, our attorneys and filed a petition to change the regulations and DTSC denied it. Then they introduced legislation twice to change the law, but it was shut down both times in committee. Negotiations continued with DTSC to resolve the issue, but every potential work-around on the regulations produced additional red tape and costs that would be prohibitive for shooting ranges.

Not until the recent enforcement push by local state agencies on shooting ranges did the unintended consequences become apparent to DTSC. Again, our attorneys engaged DTSC personnel with the issue and finally DTSC relented and published guidance on its website.

This is a tremendous win for shooting ranges throughout the state as DTSC’s previous position would have forced many shooting ranges out of business because they could not afford to dispose of their residual soil as hazardous waste after lead reclamation. And ranges could not afford to not do lead reclamation because of safety concerns.
These are the types of efforts CRPA continually works on to protect shooting ranges in California from regulatory impacts.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

China Grove Police take guns from licensed owner, 4 years later have not given them back by Robyn Oguinye

SAN ANTONIO (KABB/WOAI) – A woman has been fighting the China Grove Police Department for almost four years to retrieve property she says was unfairly taken from her family.

Brandy Napier lives in Seguin, but she and her husband have family they visit in China Grove.

That’s where her husband Franklin was pulled over by a China Grove officer in August 2018 for reportedly running stop signs.

Brandy says he had just left the gun range and had three guns in the car.

The officer confiscated them, but made no arrest.

No formal report was ever given to the Napier’s, just a burglary inventory sheet typically used to document items stolen in robberies.

“She stated that she didn’t have the proper documentation to give him, so that’s why she put it on that and she let him go,” says Brandy.

Brandy showed us receipts for two of the guns listed in her name and Franklin’s along with the serial numbers listed.

The third gun she says was bought at an auction.

She’s made several attempts to retrieve those guns since, making trips to the City of China Grove office.

Every time she says she’s been told the case is pending in the District Attorney’s office and that the guns couldn’t be returned without documentation from their office.

Brandy made a last ditch effort to retrieve the guns last month.

“He said, ‘I don’t have the documentation from the District Attorney’.”

KABB/WOAI made calls a few weeks ago requesting a formal police report from Franklin’s traffic stop in 2018.

KABB/WOAI also stopped by the department Monday to ask for the report and why the guns hadn’t been returned.

We were told we had to go through the DA’s office to retrieve any information about the case.

The DA’s office sent us a letter, stating that media requests had to be processed by the Attorney General’s office.

But the Napier’s lawyer says he’s checked: it doesn’t look like a case exists with Franklin’s name at the DA’s office and at this point, it’s too late to create a case.

“If they haven’t filed a criminal case against the person by now, the statute of limitations has run,” says attorney Patrick Hancock. “A lot more than two years has gone by, so I don’t think the DA can file anything against him and I don’t believe there’s a case sitting in the DA’s office by China Grove on this matter.”

Nearly four years later, no arrest or charges have been filed, a red flag for this attorney.

“If they can’t produce the guns that were taken, the personal property of the individual that was taken and they can’t produce a public police report to even verify that a China Grove officer stopped them and took an individual’s property, then they need to be investigated by the Texas Rangers,” says Hancock.

Brandy says to some it may seem like they just lost a few guns.

But for her family, it’s about more than that.

“God forbid if it gets in the wrong hands or if it’s already gotten in the wrong hands.”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

NJ Gov. Phil Murphy At It Again, Pushing Huge Package of Anti-Gun Measures by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

Gov. Phil Murphy. (Photo: Flickr)

 

Gov. Phil Murphy is at it again, trying to push through a huge package of extreme anti-gun measures.

It was this week, during an address at Saint Luke Baptist Church in Paterson, that Murphy called on lawmakers to enact his gun-control agenda, one that he first unveiled in April of 2021.

“The bills that I introduced one year ago are basic measures that will keep guns out of the wrong hands, help law enforcement apprehend the perpetrators of gun violence, and hold the gun industry accountable for its deceptive and dangerous practices,” said Gov. Murphy.

“I hope to work with my Legislative partners to continue making New Jersey a national leader in gun safety and prevent the meaningless violence and loss of life that results from the gun violence epidemic,” he added.

 

As GunsAmerica previously reported with the help of ANJRPC, Gov. Murphy’s proposals include:

  • Banning all 50 caliber firearms
  • Mandating electronic registration of all ammunition purchases
  • Mandating unreliable, useless “microstamping” technology for all handguns (to stamp firearms serial numbers on spent ammunition)
  • Allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for misuse of their products by criminals
  • Imposing gun registration on those moving into NJ with legal firearms previously acquired
  • Banning gun ownership for all citizens under age 21
  • Mandating training in order to simply own firearms
  • Using $12 million in taxpayer funds for anti-gun grants to universities and cities
  • Mandating that firearms dealers carry “smart” guns
  • Organizing anti-gun states to implement region-wide gun control

Unsurprisingly, the Michael Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action is backing Murphy’s move to chill the 2A rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“This bill package includes vital, common sense reforms that would provide comprehensive solutions to the gun violence that devastates New Jersey communities,” said Amy Faucher, a volunteer with the group’s New Jersey chapter.

“Our state continues to lead nationally in the gun violence prevention movement, and furthering that status means passing these important bills,” she added.

Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, criticized Gov. Murphy for targeting responsible New Jerseyans instead of the real perpetrators of gun crime.

“Someone needs to tell Governor Murphy that a gun does not have a brain to hate with or a finger to pull its own trigger,” Gottlieb told GunsAmerican via email. “He needs to support legislation that keeps violent criminals off the streets and stop attacking gun ownership for law-abiding New Jersey people.”

This is the third wave of anti-gun measures Murphy has proposed since taking office in 2018.  His administration has already succeeded in passing “red flag” confiscation orders, banning certain standard capacity magazines, criminalizing private transfers, and prohibiting so-called “ghost guns,” among other restrictions.

While Dems control both chambers following November’s elections, they lost seven seats to Republicans. NJ.com reports that Dems have been “cautious about tackling more progressive or hotly debated policy with all 120 seats in the Legislature up for grabs again in two years.”

Stay tuned for updates.