Democrat in charge. No surprise in this. Hopefully he will be defeated in the next election. I think I'll donate to his opponent, whoever that may be.
Yes, Democrat in charge. That same Democrat in charge of the State Assembly, Committee Chairman Donald Norcross (D-Camden), is toe-to-toe with another Democrat in charge, State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who refuses to advance the bill to further limit magazines (from the current 15 rounds to 10 rounds, which the bill being discussed was about).
The thing about the hearing was, anyone speaking, on condition of being allowed to speak on the record, agreed to stick to the specifics of the bill being proposed (kind of like staying on-topic here on EO). Those who spoke in support of the bill did just that. James Kaleda failed to do, even after being asked to "stay on the bill." The bill is about reducing the magazine size from 15 to 10, and James Kaleda spoke about everything
but that. He used the opportunity to make a "bigger picture" speech after expressly agreeing to debate the bill before the committee.
The previous day the speeches and testimony were all in support of the bill. The crowd was full of supporters of the bill, as was to be expected. The day of Kaleda's testimony, a day of anti-bill supporters, the crowd was likewise filled with anti-bill supporters, as was to be expected.
After Kaleda was escorted out, additional guns rights supporters took the chair to speak, and in every case they spoke about the bill creating new layers of bureaucracy, punishing only law-abiding gun owners and infringing on constitutional rights, instead of talking about whether or not the 20 year old law of a 15 magazine limit should or should not be amended to 10 rounds of ammunition, as going from 15 to 10 doesn't add any additional layers of bureaucracy, punish only law-abiding citizens, or infringe on constitutional rights any more than the 15 round limit already does.
After nearly four hours of listening to and then denying "big picture" speeches, Norcross then stopped allowing testimony. It was then that the crowd stood up and "spontaneously" recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
If someone here on EO starts a thread about the new HoS and the best ways to comply with the regulations, it's not unreasonable to expect responses to be about the new HoS regulations and how to best comply with them. If some yahoo comes in and posts a rant about how the DOT is subverting the constitutional rights of every truck driver, it's a post that's not likely to be received well, and may even be deleted. There's a time and a place for everything, and a post about complying with new HoS regulations ain't the place to whine about the big picture of DOT regulations. A hearing on the specifics of a magazine reduction bill isn't the time or the place to talk about the big picture of gun control, especially when you've agreed up front not to do that.
What he should have done is sit down and say, "There is no evidence whatsoever that reducing the magazine size from 15 to 10 will have any impact on reducing mass killings any more than the law that set the limit of 15 did 20 years ago. For 20 years that limit has been effective, and there is no reason to believe that further reducing the limit will somehow be more effective. Which means, instead of focusing on feel-good measures that have no hope of being effective, we should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, such as criminals and mental deficients, like State Assemblymen. Thank you for your time."
