Connect with us

News

New Jersey Governor Wants to Tax Poor People’s Right to Self-Defense

Published

on

According to a New York Times report, Governor Phil Murphy wants to significantly increase the tax on gun ownership in New Jersey.

New Jersey’s firearm ID currently costs $5, while a permit to own and carry a gun costs $2 and $20 respectively.

Governor Murphy, however, wants to raise those fees to $100 for the ID, $50 to own a firearm, and $400 just to carry a firearm.

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

And that’s not all.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Murphy wants to tax ammo by 10 percent and guns by 2.5 percent.

These proposals are included in the state budget which has to be passed on the deadline of June 30.

Like universal background checks, these new fees would disproportionately punish the poor and minorities.

John Lott has noted this in his book The War on Guns:

There are real costs of expanding background checks to private transfers. In particular, the fees on private transfers reduce gun ownership, particularly among law-abiding poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas and who benefit the most from protecting themselves; they will be the ones most likely priced out of owning guns for protection.

The New Jersey Governor asserts that he is not waging a “war on responsible gun owners.”

Instead, Murphy says that the funds raised from this gun tax would go towards “anti-violence” programs.

Murphy concluded, “We can support the efforts of the attorney general, state troopers, county and local law enforcement, to do the stuff we need to do: track crime, track gun violence, combat trafficking of illegal guns.”

Cody McLaughlin, the spokesman for the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, pushed back, saying that “This is clear bullying of law-abiding gun owners in the state.”

McLaughlin added, “You’re talking about sportsmen that are already paying hundreds of dollars a year in license fees.”

Lisa Caso, owner of Caso’s Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City, stated that “It’s [gun tax} going to affect gun shops tremendously” and will “deter a lot of people from buying permits. In our business, you have people coming in who barely have money to buy the most modestly priced guns, which are around $300.”

In the meantime, Caso alleges that she has heard rumors about people scrambling to buy gun permits “ahead of the potentially higher fees.”

New Jersey is one of the most anti-gun states in America, with Guns & Ammo magazine ranking it in 50th place in 2018.

Since the Parkland shooting, New Jersey has embraced a wide array of gun control measures, which notably included a 3D printable gun ban.

Should these taxes pass, New Jersey will only cement its status as one of the least friendly states for gun owners in America.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending