Chris Christie vetoes NJ bill to prohibit gun ownership by carjackers and terrorists


[Read the post]


Anyone that thought Christie actually cares about New Joisey, well you’re mistaken.


Fuck you, Jon Corzine, for being such an irresponsible moron when you were the Governor of NJ. If it wasn’t for him, Christie would never have been elected in the first place. A roadkill could have been elected as a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

If not for the necessity of his presence in the Senate, I would urge Cory Booker to run for governor. The man is one of the best politicians to come out of New Jersey and one of the few former mayors of Newark who did not leave office under a cloud of indictments.


Jesus, there ought to be some law that you need to vacate your public office the moment you start running for president. Limit the amount of damage that buffoons can do…

I assume that NJ allows the legislature to override a veto?


It sounds like anybody that the bill would prohibit from owning a gun is somebody convicted of a felony, and therefore already prohibited from owning a gun? So the bill was pretty bogus anyway.


Which makes vetoing it more of a political gaffe.

Conservative opponents will say its a sign that Christie loves carjackers and terrorists. Liberal opponents will say he is a just a shill for midwestern gun toting nutcases.


I think vetoing it is good, if we already have a law which covers it. We’ve got plenty of laws without adding redundant ones.


I am not saying the bill had any real function. But it had a certain level of publicity/political PR value. Especially for someone with allegedly presidential aspirations (why he is still in the race is a mystery).


" carjacking, gang criminality, racketeering, or terroristic threats"

Aren’t most of those felony charges anyway? If so, it’s a needless redundant law. Felons already lose their gun rights.

If a crime is so severe you should lose your gun rights, it should probably warrant a felony charge.

What is “gang criminality”, because that sounds like something ripe for abuse - “don’t let young black men have guns”.


I believe discussions of how-to bulk-download public documents also counts as a “terroristic threat.”

It’s overly broad.

This is like supporting minimum sentencing. It’s not really about keeping guns from terrorists, any more than minimum sentences are about putting major crooks behind bars.


I think that was already a very small group.


Getting smaller by the minute.


The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun from stopping a bad guy with a gun is not giving a gun to the bad guy. We can’t have that.


Too many guns.

(True for both the world and your sentence.)


It takes a lot to stop the bad
A lot of guns and mom and dad!
Some kids and ammo you can add
A shot of love to make it good, and you’ve got
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many Guns
Too many
It takes the good to stop bad guys
to shoot them up and make die
And him and her and the baby, cry
Too many Guns, that’s why
The saying goes, they’re dangerous
but not if you got an alibi
Well, maybe too many Guns will stop bad guys,
and they’ll fill our hearts and make us high
Too many Guns


Good point. Would Snowden or someone like Aaron Schwartz fall under that umbrella?


Everything that gets sufficiently disliked gets forced into the elastic word of “terrorism”. With all the emotional and other strings the label has attached.

“Our” side is doing it too these days, much to my dismay.


Congratulations on your broken political system, United States of America. It makes other bad systems, like ours up north here, look not quite as bad by comparison.


Every time anyone reports on something related to law, I find myself wishing a lawyer would provide some insight. The original article says

Under current law, people convicted of certain serious crimes, such as aggravated assault, arson, burglary, homicide, extortion, endangering the welfare of a child, stalking and burglary, are not allowed to own or purchase a firearm in the state.

The bill sought to add people convicted of “carjacking, gang criminality, racketeering and terroristic threats” to that list.

Listing burglary twice doesn’t engender a lot of confidence. Some quick googling suggests that the Federal restriction on owning a gun after being convicted of a felony (other than white collar crime) is fairly blanket. So I’m deeply confused about what’s going on here, unless NJ has some kind law under which you could be convicted for misdemeanor car-jacking

I’m generally quite in favor of gun control, but my five minute take on this is that it looks shady as hell


Watch your mouth or we’ll annex you!