First of all, as I said, they should have explained to the owner the why he was wrong to sell those guns, and the owner (as he did) would have desisted from selling the guns. The guy seems to be quite horrified at what he was unknowingly about to do. People who threatened, apparently, did so without going the “explanation” route first, and that was definitely wrong.
If the owner persisted, though, even knowing that what he did would directly lead to violation of the Second Amendment rights of people in New Jersey (again, if the law description/mechanism as given is correct), then I would not blame people for threatening him (I would blame them for carrying out the threats though).
The gun store is in Maryland; the threat was made, as far as I know, electronically, anonymously. Could be someone from NJ, could be someone from MD, or anywhere else.
I could be wrong: I haven’t been following this, and there may be updates.
1- it’s pretty condescending to think that they have to explain to the owner why he’s wrong in the same way you explain to a two year old why it’s wrong to kick people.
2- What the owner was quite horrified about was the prospect of his business and his family being the targets of mob violence.
3- If there was such a thing as Second Amendment rights, the alleged victims of any such infringement have legal recourse, which is more civilized than threatening mob violence.
4- If you don’t blame someone for threatening him, you’re an asshole of the highest order.
Terr, you have done more than any other single poster who is ostensibly on my side of the political divide to damage my perception of my side of the political divide.
If it’s a school project by the Obama girls, I certainly wouldn’t be giving them a good grade for creating such an over the top caricature of the right wing stereotype. Please, girls, if it’s you- a little subtlety.
The owner was not aware of the law and was not aware of how his selling this gun would lead to violation of people’s Second Amendment rights, so yes, it had to be explained to him.
In his video this is how he refers (after it was explained to him) to selling “smart guns” (this is quote: “That is a sin, that is godawful, that is fucked up”.
Again, I love liberal sputtering. Means I am doing something right.
Terr, I quoted you in my post. I know what “fully endorse” means.
“If that is true, I fully endorse the “gun nuts” action.”
This is just wrong, buddy. Threats of violence are as anti-social and as criminal as violence. Intimidation is how drug lords and dictators push people around. “Do what I order, or we’ll kill your family … or lock them up in a concentration camp with nothing but stale Kimchee to eat.”
" … then I would not blame people for threatening him (I would blame them for carrying out the threats though)."
IMO, you really need to re-think your position that threats and intimidation are OK, as long as the person doing the threatening decides to not actually hurt anyone or start any fires. It’s not OK.
Now, if the shop owner is not convinced by being shown the laws in question, and presented with a factual case against enabling the sniveling lawmakers who don’t have the will or means to just repeal the 2nd Amendment, then I guess you could organize a demonstration in front of his store with signs that clearly state what the result of selling this new type of weapon will be, and try to leverage a media event into a compelling argument for at least postponing the retail sale of the gun until more rational and reasonable solutions can be considered.
If the guy still wanted to sell the gun, and it’s legal for him to do so, well, that’s a loss for the pro-Constitution side, but it’s just a battle, not the whole war.
This is following the model of the ongoing purification and purge that is going on on the right. While the loony right hates the left, what they really hate is those on the right who are not sufficiently loony. The fanatic hates the heretic more than he hates the non-believer.
By all rights, someone who has opened a business to sell guns is going to be on the side of the second amendment. But that he had showed even the slightest step in the direction of a compromise makes him a threat. I also noticed that his reaction to being targeted was to establish his crazification credentials by calling for the public execution of public servants.
What I’m curious about is why you care that much. Trust me, if people in New Jersey cared enough, anyone could reach out to the NRA and say, “Hey, this law is unconstitutional” and the NRA would have lawyers over there faster than you can say “on the side of sanity for once”. And if they don’t… Well, no big loss there for anyone involved, least of all those outside NJ.
No. This was a 2002 law. There was no second amendment protection in 2002 for New Jersey at the state or federal level. In addition, the NRA’s power stems primarily from their efforts to enact legislation and influencing electoral politics. While this is extremely important for their cause, litigation is not their primary purpose.
Even if the NRA was primarily about litigation, strategic litigation isn’t just suing about the latest law that is unconstitutional. Each case must build upon the last and a series of lower strategic wins must be had first. And while each piece of bad legislation can be litigated it takes quite a bit of time and money to work through the court system with not always predictable results. Always better to head these things off than wait for years trying to resolve in court.
I would be very surprised if that very thing weren’t already in motion; either at NJ’s grass-roots level, or by the NRA/SAF/etc. Perhaps both.
Because NJ’s law could easily be a legislative “testbed” to be floated either locally here in Missouri, or federally.
Smart Gun technology is still immature, and not offered by very many manufacturers. The ones that do offer it have very limited selections of types and calibers. And at a significantly higher price than the non-Smart Gun firearms of equivalent capability.
Taken as a whole, then, Smart Gun Mandates can be seen as a kind of attempt at a backdoor ban on regular firearms, and to severely curtail lawful civilian access to firearms by greatly reducing the number/types of firearms even available to be purchased, and setting the price-point beyond the reach of ordinary, everyday people.
People can counter and say that manufacturers will rise to the consumer demand by making more types/calibers of Smart Guns available, and that the price would correspondingly drop; and it would probably be true.
But I’m not going to stake mine or anyone else’s right on that hypothetical.
So I say “boycott!” until various jurisdiction’s mandates are repealed or nullified by court rulings, and let Smart Gun Technology either stand or fall on its own merits.
There is a law that makes it so that if you’re able to buy a smart gun, then no one will be able to buy anything BUT smart guns. With such a law, no, I don’t want to allow you to buy a smart gun. If there was no such law, sure, knock yourself out. That “smart gun” is actually not a bad idea, for some people.