Author Topic: Oh oh! Can't blame this on inlines! (Read 1286 times)

Omega · « **on:** December 19, 2003, 10:50:31 AM »

A New Jersey legislator has introduced a bill that would ban the use of .50 caliber and larger muzzleloaders.

Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, is attempting to sneak Assembly Bill 3942 through during the final days of the legislative session. The bill revises the definition of prohibited destructive devices to include muzzleloaders of .50 caliber or larger. Under the bill, muzzleloaders are listed in the same section of law as Molotov cocktails and self-propelled rockets. The bill was introduced on December 11 and it advanced out of the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee the same day.

In an effort to pacify muzzleloader owners, Assemblywoman Weinberg added a Grandfather Clause to the bill, allowing current muzzleloader owners to continue to use them.

Assemblywoman Weinberg is trying to destroy an integral part of our hunting heritage, said Tony Celebrezze, U.S. Sportsmens Alliance field director. If she can ban various sized muzzleloaders, she may next introduce a bill to ban 12 gauge shotguns.

Celebrezze adds that there is no need for the bill. He urges sportsmen to take grassroots action to ensure that the antis do not erode another piece of the states outdoor heritage.

Take Action! The U.S. Sportsmens Alliance urges New Jersey sportsmen to contact their assembly members and ask them to oppose AB 3942 or any similar bill. There is no evidence that muzzleloaders pose a danger to the public. To find your assembly member and for contact information, use the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org or call (800) 792-8630

spitpatch · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:46:54 AM »

Omega
Thanks for the info. I don't live there but it really Pi##es me off to read such an article! These are the times when "Traditional" and "Modern" muzzleloader hunters need to come together. I am going to post this on the traditional site, for they too need to read it.
Thanks again.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2003, 11:53:10 AM »

It is this type of grievous, severe disregard for the U.S. Constitution that one would hope would be a very clear test case for the Supreme Court to rule upon.

spitpatch · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2003, 12:27:56 PM »

This is the kind of underhanded legislature and politician that needs to have their a## kicked by everyone who uses a muzzleloader, no matter what style they prefer........and I'd love to be the first! AMEN Randy! Is there any way we can help our muzzleloading brothers in NJ?

Myk · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2003, 12:37:21 PM »

When dey gonna busta cap in yo @##, dey be talkin bout a cap an ball y'all.
Why I don't even need nitro paper cartridges to reload in 8 seconds and those street sweeping 50's are the choice of mile long buffalo snipers.

Let them continue on with these attempts. Every time they come up with one that is way over the line like this they prove to those on the fence that their ultimate goal is to ban all weapons. A lot of those fence sitters are gun owners who think the only targets of their favored Democrat gun banners are the gang bangers. I don't think any of them believe that the gang bangers are doing drive bys with muzzleloaders.
Don't just do grassroots to stop the bill. Do grassroots to get the information out to everyone, especially those who are gun owners who favor "sensible gun control".

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2003, 02:36:53 PM »

"sensible gun control".

Would that be like 'sensible' disregard of the United Constitution? Or, is that precisely what it IS?

Old Cane · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2003, 02:42:30 PM »

No, no. Sensible gun control means removing the cigar from your mouth when you are shooting a rifle offhand, right? Leaving it in would not be sensible.

Omega · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:17:53 PM »

Quote from: Old Cane

No, no. Sensible gun control means removing the cigar from your mouth when you are shooting a rifle offhand, right? Leaving it in would not be sensible.

Yep!

Cohiba or Romeo Juileta?

Actually "sensible gun control" means keeping them all in the "X" ring!
:-D rich

Old Cane · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:19:49 PM »

Personally, it's old briar pipes for me. I hang it off to the left in the gap in my back teeth and I can still see the scope ok. I do like Portofinos a bit though.

spitpatch · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:25:04 PM »

Gotta go with Randy.........(sensible gun control?) ANY gun control is not sensible. I believe when our forefathers included the second ammendment to the Constitution they were talking about "modern arms of the day". I believe if you want to own and use any "modern arm of the day" you should have the right to do so, unhampered by Uncle SAM. I believe a citizen with no criminal background should be able to own rocket launchers, grenades, full autos, bazookas, and claymores if he chooses to do so, and can afford them. The Constitution of the United States was a document written to protect the citizen from the Government.

"When you have a government afraid of the people, you have freedom
When you have people afraid of the government, you have tyranny".....and........

"Those who give up their ESSENTIAL liberties for TEMPORARY saftey
Deserve neither liberty nor saftey"....Where are we now?

The authors of our Constitution said this, and I'm sure they could see how big, powerful, and tryannical our government was to become. Please explain "sensible gun control" This makes no sense.
We all know there is no such thing as a "BAD GUN", It's "BAD PEOPLE" using them...........Lets try "A##hole Control". Does this make sense to anyone else,...... or just me?

Old Cane · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:30:03 PM »

Makes perfect sense to me. If we tried a-h control, where would be put them? CA and TX are already full....population -wise anyway.

Omega · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:35:33 PM »

CA and TX are already full....population -wise anyway.

Ouch!@! That'll take a hat to cover the mark from that one!

Myk · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:41:25 PM »

If you want "sensible gun control" explained I suggest you go talk to the anti's who use that phrase, which is why I put it in quotes. Have fun trying to get a straight answer, they use meaningless phrases like that (or phrases that mean the opposite of what they say) for a reason.

If you get those who believe that line to know about things like banning muzzleloaders they may start to understand that it's not about being sensible, it is about being controlled.

Old Cane · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:49:46 PM »

We know what you meant. There is no talking to those people.

If for some reason you did not get my sarcasm I appologize. I have "fun with stupid phrases". The only place to actually implement any kind of gun control is in a prison cell. I don't think inmates should be allowed handguns (sadly, that is also sarcasm. I can't stop myself).

Omega · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2003, 03:59:58 PM »

I gotcha!

Don't stop on my account :-D

spitpatch · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2003, 05:05:32 PM »

Sorry, I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes......... Ever since I read Omegas post, I've been a little hot and doing my typical ranting & raving..... but the humor does help. A former leader of Russia once said that communism will take over the US of A and not a shot will be fired. I often think this is what he was reffering to.

RandyWakeman · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2003, 07:50:10 PM »

The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men. -- Plato

SB1195 came VERY close in Illinois this year - - - very close.