Skip to main content

See also:

Offer to rescind N.J. ‘smart gun’ mandate reeks of deception

Loretta Weinberg and friends: What’s to stop her from temporarily rescinding her “smart gun” mandate and then permanently resurrecting it once she’s got what she wants and they’re in the stores?
Loretta Weinberg and friends: What’s to stop her from temporarily rescinding her “smart gun” mandate and then permanently resurrecting it once she’s got what she wants and they’re in the stores?
Michael Nagle/Getty Images

A leading New Jersey citizen disarmament-pushing politician says she’s considering repealing a law she sponsored mandating “only smart handguns can be sold there within three years of being sold anywhere in the nation,” The Washington Post reported Friday. But the “offer,” presented as “compromise,” comes with strings attached.

“Democratic state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the landmark 2002 law, said she would ask the legislature to drop the mandate if the National Rifle Association, a fierce critic of smart-gun technology, pledged not to stand in the way of the weapons' development and sale,” the article reports.

Putting the ball in NRA’s court is a cynical political move designed to make them appear unreasonable if they don’t take her publicly-offered bait. After all, one of the prime self-justifying excuses Engage Armament’s Andy Raymond used to repudiate his critics, before he went on his alcohol-fueled armed rant, was “You are not supposed to say a gun should be prohibited. Then you are being no different than the anti-gun people who say an AR-15 should be prohibited.”

“No one is saying they should be prohibited,” this correspondent noted in an attempt to correct that unfounded, self-serving accusation. “We're saying they shouldn't be mandated.”

Which doesn’t give Sen. Weinberg a free pass for gun rights activists to stand by and do or say nothing as such products are introduced into the marketplace -- as if we, or the organizations we belong to have either the clout, the desire or the lawful authority to “prohibit” any firearm. We reserve the right to continue to criticize development and sales efforts as we see fit, particularly as they relate to product performance and to machinations between developers and government entities to skirt rules imposed on other gun manufacturers. And we reserve the right to investigate and document allegations of questionable approval protocols, and to report what we find.

We also reserve the right to warn gun owners that Weinberg’s “compromise” comes off as an insincere trick to give anti-gunners and “Authorized Journalists” (but I repeat myself) talking points with which to induce gun owners to lower their guards, and to give enabling retailers a pass to help her set us up for when she reneges. She’s a committed citizen disarmament zealot and “progressive” control freak who has already shown us her end game, plus we’ve seen efforts developing in other states (and nationally) to follow suit. Why would anyone trust her not to push for a return to mandatory edicts as soon as she thinks it’s an opportune time to take back that which she never had any intention of permanently giving up?

That's some "compromise."


If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."


Isn’t it a little early to be talking about the 2014 elections? Not if you want to win. My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Get Out The Vote -- Especially Your Own!


Are you and I just too untrained and dangerous to be armed? My latest JPFO alert says “Bust the myth that police are the 'Only Ones' who can be trusted with guns.”