How would you know who the Council consulted or did not consult with?

"How would you know who the Council consulted or did not consult with?" They wouldn't have done something so stupid. They, like most people, are just having knee jerk reactions. For what it's worth I'm glad I decided that in five years, if all works out my family and I will be leaving NJ.

Also, the council does not speak for me, I'll speak for myself.

Jacob, you've asked this question before but it's without basis. Learn the facts.

The meetings are on video online, and there is a written record of the agenda as well at the meetings. Furthermore, council members are free to make public comments. No indication was given by any of these means that the council consulted with anyone or did anything more than rubber stamp the proposal. Most Teaneck residents didn't even know what was happening.

@Art - Gun ownership records are readily available if you know where to look and you should check into which Councilmembers own guns. It could be an interesting statistic.

Jacob, That is not correct. Gun ownership records are not subject to FOIA nor are they subject to OPRA.

Statistically, gun ownership in urban cities comes out to approximately 20%. Suburban areas like Teaneck usually come out to 30 to 40% and purely rural areas come out to approximately 60% gun ownership.

One could expect that roughly a third of the homes in Teaneck have a firearm.

As for the "gun buyback" program, I suggest you listen to actual experts discuss the merits of such a program. Teaneck_Resident is correct, but for the wrong reasoning.

You can hear a podcast here from Prof. of Economics Steve Levitt (of Freakonomics fame):

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

1) People that bring the guns are generally the wrong guns (inherited or inoperable firearms, etc...) to focus our energy on if our goal is to prevent violence. In other words, not the guns used in crimes.

2) We look at guns that kill people and see danger, but if you step back and look at the larger picture, Any particular gun will kill a person once every 10,000 years. That's the threat level of a particular firearm.

He calculates that in order to prevent ONE gun death, a buyback would have to purchase 10.000 guns. Since they actually purchase far fewer (1,000 are turned in at a VERY successful program), the number of lives "saved" from one of these programs is so negligible (.0001 lives optimistically - around the 8:50 mark of the podcast).

Therefore, we shouldn't be using the idea of making global gun laws. We should focus on targeted laws that affect the criminals that use guns and the mentally ill the abuse them.

It's certainly not a controversial position for those who don't require facts, logic, or discussion before taking a position.

This is a sorry council. The two who don't show up should not get votes in the next sham election.

It's not that they didn't show up. Councilmembers.Adam Gussen and Mark Schwartz were at the council meeting until shortly before the vote when they left the chamber. Mr. Schwartz did not return. Mr. Gussen remained just outside the chamber and returned shortly after the vote.

Teaneck_Resident, you are incorrect on the buy-back programs. They are typically NOT used by criminals (as noted in my post above). You are however correct that they are generally a bad idea.

It would help the discussion if you (as well as others) could focus on facts to support opinions instead of conjecture. Citations would be even more helpful, but I won't press my luck.

Many of us know....

Who knows? If something is happening that is against the law, please spell it out. Tell us who is doing it, where it comes from and when it happened so that it can be corrected.

If this is a second hand story you heard, say that.

There's nothing to be gained by stating "facts" that can't be challenged or corroborated.

Jacob, this will be my last comment to you on the topic since I don't feel it has added anything to the conversation.

What are you trying to say? You stated: "Gun ownership records are readily available if you know where to look and you should check into which Councilmembers own guns."

Readily available?!? Ok, I'm interested, where are they "readily available"? Where do I look?

It's simply not true. We have laws that prevent the public from seeing lists of gun owners. They are private. Do some get leaked in violation of the law? I'm not aware of any instance, but I agree that it's possible So what?

I'm not trying to beat you up, but non-facts and innuendo do nothing but inflame already passionate rhetoric. Either put up or retract.

A fact based conversation is the only thing that can help this thread stop becoming what every other gun conversation is - a shouting match of ideologues.

Mr. Vatsky,

In my continuing effort to remove the "factoids" from this conversation, can you cite where you find that there are "21 cases of accidental firings, family violence, suicide attempts, criminal activity"?

The FBI doesn't even keep statistics for crimes that are prevented, so these stats are typically made up (on both sides).

Assuming that it's true, do the laws suggested by the NJ legislature address this issue or do they go with the "rising tide" theory that if they restrict enough guns, there might (hopefully) be a reduction in "accidental firings, family violence, suicide attempts, criminal activity", etc....?

I have no doubt that you earnestly want to reduce gun violence (in fact, I know of no one that is in FAVOR of gun violence). I merely question whether the current restrictions will do more harm than good.

That individual you mentioned admitted to a felony at a televised council meeting. He could be subject to arrest, search warrants and prosecution as we speak.

Neither you, nor I should be fearing that individual. And our laws should reflect that reality.

We should be wary of creating new classes of criminals (anyone that owns a magazine that's currently legal), which has minimal hope of actually reducing violence.

Yes, that gentleman spoke to the council and his comments can be heard at the online video. The fact that he was not able to locate a form which is readily available through the NJ State government, proves nothing but his own incompetence. He could make a call to Trenton or just google "firearms registration new jersey." The Teaneck Police are not in charge of firearms registration for the state.

New Jersey does not require the registration of firearms. Judging someone whose story you don't know as incompetent is unjustified.

Mr. Abbott is correct. I would not judge him as incompetent, but, had I been there - I would have stopped him from talking. Based on NJ's previous history with similar cases, he very well could be prosecuted for his question.

Mr. Abbot - I heard him tell his story himself. He spoke at the Feb. 5 meeting, which was recorded and can be watched online. He said he couldn't find the form to register his firearms, but all he did was check with the local police. It's not the obligation of the local police to take care of such a thing - and he took no other steps. On that basis, he concluded that something was wrong with NJ law. Would you call that competent?

Nonsense.

The individual who spoke was uncertain about the law. While it's a goal to strive for everyone to understand statutes, the way laws work that's not really possible.

In this case however, he very well could have gotten himself arrested. NJ is replete with stories of people making honest mistakes and paying dearly later on when it comes to gun laws. Mostly because of this uncertainty.

As I wrote in the other thread on this topic:
"an individual named Joseph Pelleteri (source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/state_v_pelleteri.txt) won a rife in a police auction. Years later, when the rifle was found in a safe, unloaded and apparently never fired with the tags still attached, he was nevertheless arrested, tried and CONVICTED for owning an assault weapon.

This is how laws are prosecuted in NJ. They scare people that try to navigate a complicated framework. Recently, Brian Aitken had his sentence commuted by the Governor after he was convicted of having a 17 round magazine while moving from Colorado to NJ. They were legal in Colorado.

By no means am I saying the people should have carte blanche to ignore NJ gun laws. But, it's unfortunate that people like Aitken and Pelleteri, that are clearly not the ones that are "threats" to the public, are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

"We CAN and we SHOULD be finding a way to make better laws that stand a chance of reducing violence while either not affecting current owners - or - making it easier on current law abiding gun owners."

Mr. Abbot, it's too bad you won't respond reasonably. (And again, I find this attitude typical of most gungrabbers.)

Jacob, the wonder part about a conversation is that you can equally change my mind. I would encourage you to help me understand a different point of view. If you can change my mind, all the better. I will be the first to say that I don't know everything. I'm constantly looking to be corrected.

Genesis Liu - Not true each time I have purchased ammo anywhere be it online or in a store they have asked for my NJ FID card and drivers license. If you have been buying ammo online or in stores and they have not been checking your FID card than the vendor is breaking the law which is on the books. Here is a snip from a recent order of mine.

Your order # -----is 
Auto-Ship Exception.
According to New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:58-3.3., our office is required to obtain a copy of one of the following documents before your order can be shipped: a copy of your valid firearms purchaser identification card.

Genesis Liu,

I don't know what happened to my reply to your post. However, you bring up a good point and I'd like to address it. Ammo purchases are not anonymous. Each time I purchase ammo at any store or online I am asked for my FID card and many times my drivers license. If you have been purchasing ammo and the vendor has not been asking for your FID card the vendor is breaking the law. If my previous post does not show up in a few minutes I'll post a snip from my most recent order that clear shows the vendor needs to see my FID card.

There is a limited exception for ranges that allow the purchase of ammo for use AT the range. Such a purchase does not require the showing of an FID card in NJ. However, if the ammo is being bought to be taken home, then an FID card IS required for the purchase.

Of course, it's all for naught when one can go to PA and buy it with no ID whatsoever. And there are NO statutes that NJ can pass to change that.

Fyi, here is the statute showing that Teaneck_Resident is correct:
2C:58-3.3 (1)(b) No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, or receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire handgun ammunition unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a manufacturer, wholesaler, or dealer under this chapter or is the holder of and possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card, a valid copy of a permit to purchase a handgun, or a valid permit to carry a handgun and first exhibits such card or permit to the seller, donor, transferor or assignor.

And the exception I noted above:
2C:58-3.3 (1)(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the sale of a de minimis amount of handgun ammunition at a firearms range operated by a licensed dealer

If you don't want to control the guns, then you have not read the resolution, which contains several proposals to ban certain guns outright.

To put it more bluntly, if you don't want to control guns, then you are opposed to the resolution.

Interesting Teaneck_Resident. I have never been carded other than for my age. Recently, I purchased a small amount of ammo (500 rounds), was not asked for anything. My husband usually orders it for me, never asked him if they requested that information from him but they didn't ask it of me. You are right, I purchased my ammo from a store in PA, no NJF ID card was required.

On the brighter side... I wish people, especially women would come and join our Firearms Safety and Shooting group. I believe being a part of a group that serves a purpose gives people like myself a bit of elbow room when threatened by governments with all these new regulations (its sort of a cushion). I ask people "Why do you have a gun that you don't use" their answer is usually "just in case" (WRONG). I have guns because I like to shoot (I don't think I would EVER use a gun for self defense especially living in my part of Bergen County) there are other ways in defending ones self.

I do believe people should have some sort of training before purchasing any kind of gun, that would ensure that the purchaser is serious about gun ownership (I am sure there will be a big price tag on lessons) but its worth it.

I like staying up today on how local communities feel about gun control. Thank you Teaneck Resident :0)

curious to know the total of illegal vs. legal guns being brought back. Some people I know sold their guns back because they had no use for them, didn't hear of to many illegal guns being turned in. Can anyone point me in that direction? Thanks

Genesis, it's my understanding that many of these programs promise not to run the serial numbers on the firearms (so as not to create a situation where criminals won't bring them forward), thereby making it impossible to distinguish between guns that were legally owned and those that were not.

I'd be interested in any data that can be provided for those jurisdictions that do such testing though.

This article from a recent gun buy back in Newark has some info:
http://newarknj.patch.com/articles/gun-buyback-this-past-weekend-largest-in-essex-county-history

"A conference table at Newark’s emergency services operations center was piled high Tuesday with a diverse cache of firearms, including 70 guns that were illegal to own because they had high-capacity magazines, sawed-off barrels or for other reasons. At least six had been stolen, and one had been used in a Newark shooting, said Samuel DeMaio, the director of the Newark Police Department. "

Doctors don't have any special authority in matters of the constitution, law, criminal activity, and self-defense.

I'm not sure why you think they do.

"Legislation banning civilian access to assault weapons, large ammunition clips, and munitions designed for military and law enforcement agencies"

Such a blanket statement is very problematic from a public policy perspective.

For starter, it's not accurate, as the military doesn't use semi-automatic weapons, they use automatic weapons.

It's also part of the argument that if you just reduce the number of arms, it'll eventually trickle down to fewer crimes.

It's the equivalent of saying that if you cut down on marriages, you'll reduce the number of husbands that beat their wives.

It's a bad argument and doesn't focus on the problem, namely, people committing violence.

We can and must do better.

The gungrabbers are not willing or capable of acknowledging the self-evident facts you cite. To them, the gun is not a tool; it is a big cause of crime, if not the biggest cause of crime. They actually believe that if guns are eradicated, many criminals will stop being criminals. This is a pleasant fantasy that has the added benefit of not requiring any serious thought.

Humans aren't very good at judging risk. We SEE guns in crime and the association is made for us that guns cause crime. Obviously, that's not true. It's the equivalent of seeing insulin in the home of every diabetic and coming to the conclusion that insulin causes diabetes.

If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, it's amazing how few firearms are actually used in crimes.

If you take a look at data on licensed owners, they have violence and arrest rates at much lower percentages than the general population.

"If you take a look at data on licensed owners, they have violence and arrest rates at much lower percentages than the general population."

Can you provide the source for this?

Mr Abbott,

Like many things surrounding this debate, accurate data is hard to come by. One source quoted quite often is Florida and Ohio since both radically changed their gun laws which allowed for comparison after they permitted the issuance of many conceal carry licenses and revoke them for infractions (including gun crimes). Florida changed the laws in 1987 and Ohio in 2004.

I am not by ANY means saying that more guns reduce crime, so please don't read that into my comment. At best, the addition of licensed firearms appears to have a negligible impact on crime. All this shows is that people that submit to a background check are more law abiding.

You can find the raw data on Floridas website: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf

The number of permits issued: 2,389,459 (rate of 23.9 / 100,000)
The number revoked due to committing of a crime: 6,604 (rate of 11.06 / 100,000 / year)

(cont)
The number revoked due to committing of a crime involving a firearm: 168 (rate of .28 / 100,000 / year)

According to Factcheck.org:
Rate of gun murders: 3.59 per 100,000
Rate of gun aggravated assaults: 50.8 per 100,000
Rate if nonfatal gun injuries and assault: 17.8 per 100,000
Rate of gun robberies: 45.8 per 100,000
Total = 117.99 per 100,000 vs. .28 for licensed carriers of firearms

Again, all this "proves" is that people that are willing to go through background checks are less likely to commit crimes. I don't find it all that surprising.

source: http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Thanks for the information. I do have some quibbles with the numbers derived from the Florida statistics. However, it does not take away from the conclusion that, "all this 'proves' is that people that are willing to go through background checks are less likely to commit crimes." I also don't find it surprising..

The number of licenses issued over the 25.75 years covered by the data is not a useful number for the calculations. Far better is the number of currently valid licenses - 1,019,866. Using 19,317,568 as an estimated 2012 Florida population gives about 1 license per 19 residents or 5279/100,000. This could clearly have varied over the quarter of a century covered by the report but it's the only information available.

Based on 6604 out of 1,019,866 license holders committing crimes over 25.75 years, the rate is 25/100000. This omits the 522 licenses revoked due to crimes committed prior to licensure which one could argue should be included.

The same math used for the 168 licensees who committed crimes where firearms were utilized gives only 0.63/100,000.

"Based on 6604 out of 1,019,866 license holders committing crimes over 25.75 years, the rate is 25/100000. This omits the 522 licenses revoked due to crimes committed prior to licensure which one could argue should be included."

As I said, the lack of raw data makes precise calculations difficult, but I assure you that I wasn't trying hide the other numbers.

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the reason the 522 were revoked were because they were either crimes committed in other States which eventually got reported to Florida (in which case, better reporting may have helped over the 25.75 year period) or were accidents on the part of the licensing authority. Either way, those were clearly applications which should have been denied. Obviously, the reality is that any system is going to have SOME error, but I was trying to delve into how many legitimately licensed individuals commit crimes. Crimes committed before they got the license doesn't tell us much about future criminal activity, post-license, if you get my drift.

"The same math used for the 168 licensees who committed crimes where firearms were utilized gives only 0.63/100,000."

Either way, it seems to my eye, that at a minimum, we'd be in better shape if we created national requirements similar to Florida's requirements for conceal carry. They require a class on gun basics and safety along with all the other background checks.

I did not mean to suggest in any way you were trying to hide anything. The comment about the 522 was just something I thought worth considering.

Significantly more data would be needed to conclude that creating, "national requirements similar to Florida's requirements for conceal carry," would be beneficial. An extremely superficial look at state statistics - see http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf - would suggest NJ's requirements would be a better choice.

All that is required to obtain a firearm in NJ is a background check and some cash. The class for Florida's conceal carry permit is not even required here.

Obviously, NJ laws on conceal carry make it nearly impossible for the average citizen to go about with a firearm (legally), but I wouldn't be surprised to find that those that would risk jail time by committing gun crimes, also wouldn't let such a trivial thing such as a license stop them from carrying a firearm around.

I am a little concerned about the current bills before the NJ legislature though. With such a large number of 15 round magazines currently in circulation (the legal limit), the new rules will, in essence make a criminal out of those (now) law-abiding citizens.

I've been reading as much on this topic as I can and I simply don't see how reducing magazine capacity from 15 to 10 (which has drawbacks as stated above) will be able to successfully reduce crime and violence. The vast majority of violence seems to involve a single bullet.

Such a requirement would most likely be found to be unconstitutional as a form or prior restraint. You simply can't force someone to take a class to own a firearm any more than you can in order to get a voter registration card.

Obviously, the case is different for those permitted to travel around with their firearm. For those people, many jurisdictions require such a class.

Obviously, whether a requirement or not, such classes are excellent and should be attended by all.