A state senator from Cape May has introduced a bill (S-2264) to make it easier for New Jerseyeans to carry handguns. Jeff Van Drew, who owns two guns himself, proposes that New Jerseyeans should be able to carry guns if they take a gun safety class, pass a rigorous background check and pay an annual $500 licensing fee. Gun control advocates, unsurprisingly, hate the measure, which is modeled on a similar program in Pennsylvania. Gun groups think the $500 fee is excessive.

[polldaddy poll=3834674]

12 replies on “Guns to Go? Bill in NJ Senate Would Make it Easier”

  1. Nice touch Galant. Using a photo of a “street gun” complete with an electrical tape stock.

    Couldn’t help yourself, huh?

  2. p.s. it’s currently a piece of cake to buy and carry a gun legally. Crooks have no problem getting guns.

    The poll question should be “Should It Be Easier For Law Abiding Citizens To Carry a Gun in NJ?”

  3. “Should It Be Easier For Law Abiding Citizens To Carry a Gun in NJ?”

    Yes. BUT…they should have to attend a mandatory class on the proper use of said gun and gun safety in general.

  4. The $500 annual fee is prohibitively high by design and completely out of whack when compared to neighboring states (PA, for example, charges less than $30 for a 2 year permit).

    The legislator who proposed this is smart, though, in that it’s probably only a matter of time before a case goes to the Supreme Court and we have a repeat in NJ of what happened in DC. The proposed law lays the ground work for the state to still have SOME control (ie: Mandatory safety courses) and might nab a few grand before the court overturns that section of the law (or at least makes the fees more realistic).

    (Not that this law has a snowball’s chance of passing.)

  5. True, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised so far with Gov. Christie’s performance.

    Just like I’d be pleasantly surprised if this new legislation passes so the courts can whittle down that obscene $500 annual permit fee (Mr. Van Drew himself admits 80% of that fee is designed as a revenue generator and, I’m sorry, but constitutional rights shouldn’t bee seen as revenue generators).

  6. well it’s way ahead in the baristanet poll, but since you can vote multiple times, I’m not sure that proves anything.

Comments are closed.