By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
New Jersey Gov. Christ Christie’s veto of a gun control measure that would have reduced magazine capacity for firearms in the Garden State to ten rounds was a win for gun owners, but there are many in the gun rights community who remain skeptical of the blunt-speaking Republican.
Christie vetoed the measure, suggested substitute legislation that eases commitment procedures for people with possibly dangerous mental disorders, and issued a bristling veto message that called out gun control proponents for using gun control as an expedient way of avoiding tough decisions.
“According to proponents of this bill,” Christie said, “reducing the number of rounds that can be fired from a gun will reduce death and injury during an episode of mass violence. This idea is not new. In 1990, New Jersey enacted a law reducing the legal capacity of ammunition magazines to fifteen rounds. Now, the Legislature claims a new capacity is necessary in light of recent and tragic incidents of violence.
“These advocates argue that forcing an unstable, untreated, and likely clinically ill shooter to pause to reload during a rampage will humanely spare lives,” he added. “This is the very embodiment of reform in name only.”
The recent attack in Santa Barbara underscored Christie’s remarks. Spree killer Elliot Rodger used ten-round magazines, after also having gone through three background checks and three waiting periods to take possession of his handguns under California law. Those restrictions are cornerstones of the gun prohibition lobby’s solution to criminal violence.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), lauded Christie’s veto. To him, it’s a win not just for gun owners, but for common sense.
“Considering the tremendous pressure that was exerted on the governor by gun prohibitionists from all over the country, it took a clear understanding that penalizing law-abiding citizens rather than punishing criminals is a far more effective deterrent to violent crime,” Gottlieb said.
“New Jersey anti-gunners have traditionally tried to fool their constituents and the press by pushing measures that only appear to do something while accomplishing nothing,” he added. “This makes for good sound bites, but bad policy. It creates a false sense of security right up to the next tragedy.
Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, noted in a press release, “The Governor clearly recognizes the difference between legislation that punishes violent criminals vs. legislation that targets the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Despite the satisfaction of Garden State gun activists following the veto, many in the firearms community are not convinced Christie is their friend. Several gun owners leaving comments on CCRKBA’s Facebook page expressed doubts, and a couple suggested the veto was an election year ploy designed to shore up the governor’s reputation in anticipation of a 2016 presidential bid.
Anti-gunners were not happy with Christie. Prior to his veto, a delegation of gun prohibitionists led by Mark Barden, father of a 2012 Sandy Hook victim, was in Trenton to deliver thousands of petitions from people all over the country, asking Christie to sign the legislation.
Barden told reporters, “We want him to know that we are watching, we are aware and we are engaged.”
The majority of those signatures were from out-of-state, with only about one in five being from New Jersey residents, according to the newspaper. There were some 55,000 signatures, “including 10,000 from New Jersey,” the Newark Star-Ledger reported.
