Christie Stands Up for Guns in New Jersey, Demands Shall-Issue

chris christie

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaking to the press outside Shooters Pub. (Photo: Christie/Facebook)

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has taken a firm stand for gun rights in New Jersey. Christie vetoed two gun control bills that would create a “smart gun” mandate and further restrict concealed-carry. He then went on to state that he wants to see shall-issue in the Garden state.

“The right to own a gun is a fundamental one enumerated in the Constitution,” said Governor Christie in an official statement. “I continue to oppose the relentless campaign by the Democratic legislature to make New Jersey as inhospitable as possible to lawful gun ownership and sales.”

“Instead of remaining an outlier with overly burdensome restrictions of questionable constitutionality, New Jersey should follow the lead of the vast majority of states across the country and simplify, not complicate, the ability of responsible citizens, dealers and retailers, to buy, sell and possess firearms as protected by the Second Amendment.”‎

New Jersey has a ticking smart gun mandate in place set to go off once the technology becomes mainstream. With the invention of the Armatix personalized rimfire pistol gun control advocates argued that it’s time to put the mandate in place. The state’s attorney general later determined that the Armatix did not meet the legal criteria to trigger the mandate. The bill would have circumvented the attorney general’s determination.

Smart gun systems are controversial as they can compromise a gun’s reliability. They also increase the cost of firearms. New Jersey lawmakers, seeing these potential pitfalls to the technology, exempted law enforcement from the mandate.

The other bill sought to strengthen the language surrounding the may-issue language of New Jersey’s concealed-carry laws.

See Also: Christie Institutes ‘Modest Incremental Improvement’ to the ‘Abomination’ that is New Jersey Gun Law

May-issue states require that individuals seeking carry permits show “justifiable need” to carry a firearm outside the home. “Justifiable need” often means that the person is an active target of crime or has a special status as a public figure. Shall-issue states must instead prove that a person is unfit to carry in public, if not, they must issue a permit.

Christie conditionally vetoed the carry bill, striking out all of the justifiable need language. He said he would sign the bill if it replaced it entirely with shall-issue language.

In the past, Christie has taken a neutral or even pro-gun control stance but in recent years he’s transformed into a proper gun-rights proponent. These actions show he’s willing to restore gun rights to the citizens of New Jersey and bring the state more in line with the rest of the country on guns. New Jersey’s gun laws are fairly restrictive compared to most of the nation.

As noted, Christie called the bills part of a “relentless campaign by the Democratic legislature to make New Jersey as inhospitable as possible to lawful gun ownership and sales” and that he would not let it go on.

“When the legislature tried to broadly expand the assault weapons ban, I vetoed it,” Christie continued. “When the legislature tried to lower the magazine capacity from a maximum of 15 rounds to 10, I vetoed that bill also. Most notably, I have not hesitated to use my authority as governor to pardon deserving individuals whom I believe have been unjustly charged or convicted under our State’s overly-restrictive gun laws.”

Assembly Majority Leader Louis Greenwald (D-Camden/Burlington) spoke out against the vetoes in a statement. “The Governor’s conditional veto is proof that he is out of touch with the overriding sentiments of New Jersey residents, the majority of whom support gun safety.”

“This makes the Governor’s recommendations all the more dismaying,” continued Greenwald. “Issuing concealed carry permits to every pizza delivery boy in the state won’t make us any safer as a community. I am extremely disappointed in this short-sighted action taken by Governor Christie.”

About the author: Max Slowik is a writer with over a dozen years of experience and is a lifelong shooter. He has unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the human right to self-defense. Like Thomas Paine, he’s a journalist by profession and a propagandist by inclination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Doctorwho August 6, 2019, 2:37 pm

    Interestingly enough, you moderators supposedly stand for the second amendment, yet moderate our comments ?

    You are as bad as the gun banners,
    Get stuffed.

  • Larry Koehn September 6, 2016, 3:13 pm

    So all those pizza boys should turn over the little that they make to any thug that confronts them? I would much prefer the streets littered with dead thugs but that is the DemoRATZ voter base so it is no wonder that DemoRATZ want to protect them at the expense of tax payers. The pizza boys pay taxes and the thugs don’t.
    Now that I am retired I would not travel to NJ for anything and when I was working I cringed every time that I had to go there.

  • Patriot September 3, 2016, 7:18 pm

    There is no doubt that Greenwald is a gun controller and resents the Second Amendment that has been said to be a protection for the First Amendment. I hope to see Greenwald lose the next election. I am sure the majority of people in New Jersey are glad to see Gov. Christie stand up for the Constitutional right for personal protection and self defense provided by the Second Amendment ( excluding gun ownership by convicted felons ).

    On the Federal level, I feel sure all qualified veterans will have FULL Second Amendment rights when TRUMP IS ELECTED and CORRUPT LIAR, ROTTEN TO THE CORE HILLARY IS NOT ELECTED.

  • Jack Osborn September 2, 2016, 11:21 pm

    Bravo Govenor Christie keep up the good work….it is never too late!

  • Charles Kimberl September 2, 2016, 5:50 pm

    Too little, too late RINO fatboy.

    • Boss September 4, 2016, 11:18 am

      Aye, tis true!
      And ‘may issue’ allows the libs to give gun rights to libs, people of power, and friends ONLY!
      The rest can die where they stand.
      “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms” – Aristotle

  • Mac September 2, 2016, 5:04 am

    Christie IS A FRAUD!!!!

    • Lew September 2, 2016, 10:28 am

      Christie is a true RINO with national ambitions. He can make token announcements sounding pro gun knowing that nothing will pass in a Democrat controlled legislature. Yes, a FEW people were pardoned but were their firearms ever returned? What about all the unconstitutional injustices that continue in NJ? Nothing will change in that state,worse even then NY. NO ONE gets a carry permit there.

  • Muirne Thomas August 29, 2016, 7:30 pm

    “Shall-issue states require that individuals seeking carry permits show “justifiable need” to carry a firearm outside the home. “Justifiable need” often means that the person is an active target of crime or has a special status as a public figure. Shall-issue states must instead prove that a person is unfit to carry in public, if not, they must issue a permit.” – Please re-read this statement from your article and then print a correction. Your article defined both MAY issue and SHALL issue states but called them both SHALL issue. A MAY-issue state usually requires the applicant to provide a justifiable need and then, if they determine the need is truly justifiable (in their own estimation), they “MAY” issue a concealed carry permit. A SHALL issue state on the other hand will grant a carry permit to an applicant who passes the preset criteria set forth by that state usually along the lines of no criminal charges/convictions; no drug convictions; no assault; no domestic violence; no mental instability; etc… as long as the applicant meets the specified criteria the state “SHALL” grant the carry permit or else provide substantial justification as to why the applicant did not meet the requirements. These are two vastly different approaches to granting permits to law abiding gun owners. Other than this error, I found the article good and like other commenters, I try to avoid ever visiting states who do not recognize my state’s CCW permit. If they do not see fit to welcome law abiding citizens unless those individuals give up their constitutional rights to self defense and become unarmed targets then I choose to spend my hard earned dollars elsewhere.

    • Joe McHugh September 2, 2016, 7:14 am

      Muirne Thomas, your clarification about “may issue” and “shall issue” is exactly right. However, it could be simplified by saying the a competent, law-abiding American citizen has the right to enforce his or her Second Amendment right to arms. “May issue” regulations are examples of tyrannical state legislators that would eliminate the Second Amendment if they could. In cities like New York, it’s “may issue” is interpreted as being “Your not going to carry a handgun in this city, in this life cycle!”

  • Rick August 29, 2016, 7:58 am

    My wife and I are retired and traveled all over this country. I have a concealed carry permit and only travel to states that I can legally carry. Its to bad that we can’t have one permit for the entire country. Thank you for supporting the 2nd amendment.

    • carl August 29, 2016, 11:38 am

      Never a truer statement one permit for all states is the way to go CCW through the entire country

    • Bruno September 2, 2016, 6:27 am

      Why should we need a permit at all? It is an infringement on our 2nd Ammendment Rights!

      • Barry September 2, 2016, 8:22 am

        Bruno, you are correct. What other Constitutional right do US citizens have to a license in order to practice?

      • Dominick Lordi September 2, 2016, 12:18 pm

        Bruno, you are exactly correct. Vermont has it right!

    • Doctorwho August 6, 2019, 2:35 pm

      You can carry in all States and territories, as qualified current or retired law enforcement with current credentials, or identified retired credentials.

      This sets precedence since Law Enforcement personnel are civilians.

  • JAQUE BAUER August 27, 2016, 3:52 pm

    An act by a man who never lifted a finger for the right to bear arms before he became a Trumpie, aside from pardoning a non resident woman who took a wrong turn and entered the Gestapo State by mistake with a handgun in her purse. The fat mans action by vetoing these bills is a positive step, albeit a political one.

Send this to a friend