We’ve been covering the topic of the proposed bill(s) in New Jersey which will completely eviscerate a law abiding citizen’s ability to carry a firearm for self-protection. Tom recently brought up how a Senate committee voted to advance the measure, as well as it stalling in the Assembly, with a full vote postponed. I recently discussed the flaw in the bill that would have outlawed common items nearly everywhere in the state, which the jackals seem to be reconciling.  A recent interview with the Assembly bill’s primary sponsor, Joe Danielsen, really puts the icing on the cake on how hubris and or clueless he is. I’m constantly reminded to not confuse ignorance with malice. I think there’s a little of both in the Assemblyman. Not that Danielsen needed any help to make himself sound like a jackass, in my opinion, he outdid himself quite nonchalantly during an October 26th interview, blowing up his motives.

The bill (S3214/A4769) is supposed to do what? According to Danielsen, it’s a commonsense measure that’ll make us all safer.

“As a recreational hunter, I know that commonsense gun reform doesn’t stop sportsmen like me from continuing traditions that have been passed down through our families for generations. As a father, I know how important it is to keep our communities and schools safe. There is nothing at odds with promoting responsible gun ownership, gun safety, gun education, and gun training while upholding the Second Amendment. I am proud to author this legislation that will strike a balance between promoting public safety and allowing people to exercise their Constitutional rights.” – Facebook post from Joe Danielsen

Well, thank the gods that Danielsen went out of his way to tell everyone that he’s a “recreational hunter”. It’s established we’re dealing with a Fudd, as if that makes him a “credible messenger” here. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, Fudd. In Danielsen’s quest to make everyone safe, he further espoused what the bill is intended to do.

“I’m proud to share with you that legislation A4769, which I am the prime sponsor of, has been passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and is now referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A4769 creates new disqualifications from the permit process such as past violations of restraining orders, domestic violence convictions, or those experiencing mental health crises.

Another important component of this legislation is that it prohibits permit holders from carrying handguns in sensitive areas, with categories including schools, government buildings, polling places, bars and restaurants, theaters, sporting arenas, airports, casinos and childcare facilities. This historic legislation ensures New Jersey will have common sense gun safety laws that will keep our residents safe.

Always at your Service,

Joe Danielsen” – Facebook post from Joe Danielsen

During Danielsen’s quest to remove the Constitutional rights from New Jersey citizens, and those who will be from out of state that ultimately end up with NJ permits to carry, he talks about the measure as if there are no disqualifiers in the Garden State to begin with, or federally. 

Who already can’t be in possession of firearms?

• People with restraining orders. 
• Those convicted of domestic violence.
• People adjudicated mentally defective.

Pumping up his bill with all those measures is just feel good, do nothing, fluff.

Danielsen’s list of sensitive areas, as previously explored, leaves Garden Staters close to nowhere they’ll be able to legally carry. That’s gotta be okay though, because Danielsen assured us all, “For me, as a responsible law-abiding citizen, this bill really changes very little. But for millions, this bill will provide the safety without constitutional conflict.” Isn’t that cute, nothing changes for Danielsen, but the rest of the schmucks in New Jersey are, what? They’re not “reasonable law-abiding citizen[s]”? What further safety is everyone else going to get that’s different from the non-change in Danielsen’s own life? I’m happy to hear nothing changes for you comrade Danielsen.

Noted the other day by Dennis Malloy, a conservative leaning radio talk show host from New Jersey 101.5, the bill only affects the law abiding.

The bill being put up for a vote today to the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is a joke.

It is an insult to victims of violent crime, citizens concerned about safety and every New Jersey resident who doesn’t want to be at the mercy of violent criminals.

To Malloy’s point, Danielsen pretty much admitted the same during his October 26th interview. The interview aired live through the Franklin Reporter and Advocate’s Facebook page. Danielsen did a Q and A, and this stunning admission actually came out of his mouth:

The last thing I want to say to people, and some of my own Democrats have committed to me, a commented that to me, this does nothing [to] stop the illegal gun trade, or the illegal criminal, illegal possessions, or criminal content and…you’re right. This doesn’t. It was never supposed to address that.

This is addressing the legal, law abiding, responsible citizens. That’s what it’s designed to do.

If anything, this is evidence that Danielsen is purposely trying to usurp the liberties of the law abiding gun owner.

On these grounds, the full Assembly and full Senate should completely scrap the measure, as Danielsen has admitted the bill never aimed to stop any criminal activity. This member of the party that lauds so-called criminal justice system reform only seeks to add more criminal infractions to New Jersey’s already draconian law.  Those added disqualifiers to the bill that are already included in who can’t own firearms, those are to, in his words, address “the legal, law abiding, citizens”? How so?

“This whole, entire bill is responding to what we believe the far majority of people in New Jersey expect of us — that is, to keep them safe. There’s no other, higher priority for me as a legislator than to keep the people of New Jersey safe. That was our target, this bill has got the bulls-eye,” – Joe Danielsen

This bill and these lawmakers are wearing on the patience of New Jersey’s real responsible and real law abiding gun owners. The measure is blatantly unconstitutional for a multitude of reasons, and Danielsen’s (along with the rest of the disgusting swamp creatures’ from the Garden State) generalized fears are not enough to warrant such a measure. 

The real irony here is that when a NJ citizen tried to get a permit to carry in the pre NYSRPA v. Bruen days, “generalized fears” were not a sufficient justifiable need to warrant the issuance of a permit. Just as Danielsen’s belief that “the far majority of the people in New Jersey expect” such nonsense, is also insufficient.

Looking at NYSRPA v. Bruen, can Danielsen’s “beliefs” meet the level of scrutiny that New York failed to meet?

We conclude that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s propercause requirement. Under Heller’s text-and-history standard, the proper-cause requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

I think not.

Whatever the lawmakers, including Danielsen, who put this measure out were promised by Phil Murphy and the powers that be, I hope it’s all worth it. This just general party solidarity? Or, some “if I become President” kind of wink and nod agreement? I’ve heard the rumors of what happens to any Democrat in New Jersey that so much as makes a peep, semi-publicly breaking ranks, that may seem positive about carry in the Garden State. Those rumors did not sound good. The Democratic party in Jersey is on a crazy train, Murphy’s at the throttle, and somehow Danielsen decided to go along on this unconstitutional ride.

We’ll continue to cover the madness of New Jersey, in general, and concerning this measure. In the meantime, let’s hope that there are a few Democrats that take their oath seriously, and vote “no” on these bills, and all future gun-control measures. There’s a slight chance some of them have a conscious left.

Want to watch the clip of Danielsen telling it like it is? Click HERE, or catch it in the embed below.

(The full interview can be found on the Franklin Reporter and Advocate’s Facebook page.)