This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
New Jersey Proposes One-Gun-Per-Month Limit
According to this Associated Press story, New Jersey could become the nation's fifth state and the first in nine years to make it illegal for people to buy more than one handgun a month. In explaining why she sponsored the legislation, Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley said "I personally can see no reason why anyone would want to go out and buy guns in multiples."
Now is it me, or does this beg the question: Then why do you need the new law?
First of all, here's where I'm coming from: I'm not against gun control. I am Canadian and we have lots of it. For example I have a 'non-restricted' firearms license. Even though I had to take a standardized two day course and a test, I can't own handguns under this license. If I took the further course and test to allow me to buy handguns, I could still only do it if I was an active member of a gun club (I am anyhow). Furthermore, I would then only have a permit to transport any handguns that I had between my house and the gun club or shooting competitions. I don't mind any of this in and of itself. It doesn't specifically bother me that all of my long guns are registered in the federal gun registry. The trouble and confusion to me and to the poor people who have to try to enforce these complicated laws is a problem; and so is the cost to taxpayers. These laws and regulations do bother me, because it is not clear how they prevent crime.
On to law in New Jersey: In practical and explicit terms, could anybody explain what it would accomplish? What crime can a person commit with multiple handguns that a person with one semi-auto and a few spare full mags couldn't? Since weapons of all kinds, including guns, can be acquired illegally, can placing any laws on law abiding gun owners prevent much crime? Would the effort and money spent on such laws be better spent addressing the reasons why people commit crimes in the first place?
Michael
Posted by: Michael | February 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I can't really say that I've ever had a reason to buy more than one handgun in a one month period anyway, but New Jersey is a small state so if I lived there and felt the urge to buy more than one in a month I would just drive to another state. That thought process in itself will really hurt those who sell guns in that state because it sets a cap on the amount of money a store that sells guns can make. Guns do not kill people, bullets do, and despite their attempt to limit the amound of guns someone can buy it only takes on gun and one bullet to kill someone.
Posted by: Nate | February 15, 2007 at 01:29 PM
This law would only apply to law abiding individuals and not criminals...another "feel good" law that impinges on our rights. New Jersey already has stiff gun control laws...and rampant crime in cities like Newark and Trenton. Pass laws that criminalize being a gang member and enforce those laws...guess what happens? Crime goes down.
Posted by: George Steiner | February 15, 2007 at 02:17 PM
"Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
I know it's a common catch phrase, but it isn't right. Bullets, left alone, are just as inert and guns. People kill people.
Michael
Posted by: Michael | February 15, 2007 at 03:20 PM
i dont understand why you would need to buy two handguns in a month unless you returned it and bought a new in the same month
Posted by: | February 15, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Okay, here's a reason you may wish to purchase more than one gun a month. (Although it probably wouldn't happen every month.)
Say my home convention center is having a gun and knife show. I go to the show and see a gun that I just have to have. I purchase said gun. I have the permit, I'm not a criminal, and all is fine.
Now, two weeks later a buddy of mine calls and says there's a gun show about two hours away in another city, and he heard that a certain item he had been looking for was going to be there. He asks me to go with him and I do. While there I see another gun that I just have to have and make the purchase. (This has happened to me more than once) Now, under current law everything is fine. If they change the law, by me buying the second gun, I have now become a criminal, and could lose my right to own said guns.
Sorry, but any law that inhibits a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun is just plain wrong.
John
Posted by: John | February 16, 2007 at 06:57 AM
What about placing two orders for limited edition handguns or a hard to get handgun and both arrive at your local dealer in the same month? Not as farfetched as it would seem...some wholesalers wait untill the have enough firesarms to ship to a dealer.
Posted by: George Steiner | February 16, 2007 at 09:33 AM
it's stupid
why NOT be able to buy multiple handguns?
I bought one yesterday, took it out, shot it, decided it wasn't exactly what I wanted, want to go back today and get a different one...
That's a real deal story
or... I bought one and then a buddy calls a week later and says "hey man, want to go on a hog hunt this weekend?" and you decide it would be cool to do it with a handgun and don't own a true hunting pistol and the 1911 you love really isn't ideal for wild hogs...
that's a true story
it's just stupid in my opinion
Posted by: Charles Coker | April 05, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Why would a state tell it's law abiding citizens a law that says " Your rights do not matter to us."I live in California and I am moving back to Indiana ... My rights still goes there , or until Obama gets in office and take the second amendment away from all of us ,except for the CRIMINALS..
Posted by: Raymond | October 30, 2008 at 01:08 AM