Being a gun owner should be relatively easy. You go and you buy a gun and that should be it. Poof! You’re a firearm owner.
However, it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. After you buy a gun, you then find yourself being targeted by politicians who seek to appease their base at your expense. People want to ban certain types of guns, including what you potentially own, for example.
In New Jersey, it’s even worse because they tell you what kind of ammo you can use and restrict you from using what the rest of the nation terms as self-defense ammunition because…well, I still haven’t found a good reason for their banning of hollow-point ammunition for the average citizen. It’s a thing, though, and it makes life difficult for the average guy or gal who has a firearm.
Now there’s a new proposal in New Jersey that is going to make it even worse.
Their main push is for “safe gun storage,” which targets what you do with your firearms IN YOUR OWN HOME. The way the bill is written you would be dead or your family completely vulnerable by the time it would take to access your gun IN YOUR OWN HOME
New Jersey already has some of the strictest gun laws in the county and they really only affect legal gun owners.
And yes, that “safe” storage bill is nothing of the sort. As I understand it, the law would require every gun owner to not just have a safe for securing their weapons, but also one for securing their magazines and ammunition. Oh, and before you think things aren’t too bad, ammo couldn’t be kept in the magazine.
So at three in the morning, when you hear the shattering of glass, you’re expected to get up, access your gun safe and get it, then access an additional safe, load up a magazine, then put it into your firearm, chamber a round, and then you can meet the threat.
Assuming, of course, you’re not already dead.
Revolver guys get it a little easier since they get to skip a few steps. Also, I suspect they could lawfully keep rounds in a speedloader or moon clip since those aren’t technically magazines really depends on the law’s wording.
There’s nothing “safe” about that kind of storage.
If requiring people to lock up their guns is an effective strategy, then why require an additional safe–thus adding to the expense required to exercise a constitutional right–when one should be enough?
The answer is simple, in my opinion. They simply don’t want people owning guns and so they’ll do everything they can to dissuade people from becoming gun owners. That includes making it just too damn expensive for anyone to own a gun.
Couple that with the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that complying with this kind of law would negate any efforts at self-defense–and knowing how self-defense is a prime motivator for gun ownership these days–and it’s nothing more than a legal attempt to keep people from exercising a constitutionally protected right.
About typical for New Jersey, actually.