Gun Control. Do we need it? New Jersey to BAN all handgun ammo.

New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is considering passing legislation to ban all handgun ammo and some rifle ammo under the guise of "protecting police" with Assembly Bill 588 and Assembly Bill 1013 on Monday January 30th.

The law looks to add to the already banned "armor piercing ammunition" any handgun ammo that is deemed "dangerous" or "a threat to the safety and well being of law enforcement.”

Due to the vagueness of the bill, as with every bill now a days, it would also add to the ban all "common hunting, target, and self-defense ammunition would be subject to ban, along with BB’s, airgun pellets, and non-metallic ammunition like plastic airsoft pellets.” according to Ammoland

The NRA agrees with Ammoland that while the bill deals only with handgun ammo, it encompasses all other forms of ammo including rifle ammo.

Although the bill only mentions handgun ammunition, it is in fact not limited to handgun ammunition, and would apply to all rifle ammunition for which a handgun is ever made. As an increasing number of gun manufacturers make handgun models that shoot rifle caliber ammunition, the line between “handgun” vs. “rifle” ammunition has become blurred, and the New Jersey State Police have already begun treating rifle ammunition in this category as if it were handgun ammunition for regulatory purposes. As long as a handgun exists that shoots a particular caliber of rifle ammunition, New Jersey treats that ammunition as if it were handgun ammunition

Not only will it ban ammo but it would also "criminalize the use of a defaced or stolen firearm" which due to the vagueness of the bills would restrict the LEGAL ownership of any restored or modified firearm.

Here is my problem with this, ignorance. The Police have repeatedly proven their inefficiency with protecting the citizens (just Google police misconduct and brutality) and they have admitted their inability to protect us, and that THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO PROTECT US. 

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
    On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
    (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
    (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
    (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
    (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
    (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
    (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
    "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
    (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
    Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
    (8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
    Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
    New York Times, Washington DC
    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
    The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Source

==================

So given the above, they still choose to propose a poorly written bill to remove the right to buy ammunition by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (criminals don't care about laws) to protect the police? Who are not required to protect us?

lolwut?

What do we do then? Wait? Hide? "Oh please mr bad man, dont hurt/kill/rob/rape/torture me or my mom/dad/sister/brother/dog/cat/cousin/aunt/grandma!!"

If you are going to pass laws like this, at least leave it to the professionals.

Some more facts for you guys

 Click HERE for bigger view

In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.
Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."
A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim.

Taken from
NRA-ILA The Armed Criminal in America

What criminals think below

What politicians don't read or know or care about below

That's the United States Constitution by the way

So what do you guys think? Leave a comment below.

Important:

ACTA - Worse then SOPA/PIPA

How to bypass Internet Censorship SOPA/ACTA