Cruz Takes Aim At ‘Discriminatory’ Gun Control Bill

Cruz

Dan Cruz, a Republican candidate who attempted to unseat State Senator Oroho in the 2021 primary, is running again, looking to oust US Senator Robert Menendez when the senator’s term is up in 2024.  While he has national aspirations, Cruz is also monitoring state legislation and recently took aim at Assemblyman Joseph Danielsen’s gun control legislation (A-4769) which introduces higher fees for obtaining a firearms ID, new ownership requirements for concealed carry permits for handguns, and includes an exhaustive list of locations where firearms cannot be carried, among other elements.  The contentious bill was highlighted by fiery exchanges between the sponsor and Republican opponents, most notably Assemblyman Brian Bergen.  The bill also requires those who obtain a concealed carry permit to buy insurance, to which one Assembly Republican claimed is impossible to actually find in New Jersey.

As expected, the bill passed through the Assembly where Democrats hold a majority.

Cruz, a native of Paterson now living in Sussex County, spoke before the State Senate against the bill and took particular umbrage with language he said was employed by Assemblyman John McKeon.  Cruz charged that the legislation was not only ineffective and impractical, but was inherently racist by making it harder for disadvantaged urban communities to afford to exercise their legal rights to gun ownership.

The bill itself comes as a response to the US Supreme Court ruling of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen.  Previously, New Jersey had been a state in which applicants for a concealed carry permit had to demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order to get one.  The Supreme Court ruling, however, struck the requirement for a justifiable need down as unconstitutional.  Democratic lawmakers responded in turn with new legislation.

“I was born and raised in Paterson, New Jersey,” Cruz said, “and I was once labeled a juvenile delinquent, yet here I am today speaking in front of you guys, but only because something bothered me in the last few weeks. ‘Does anyone really want to put more guns in the hands of people who live in Paterson, Newark, Elizabeth, and Camden to say, oh, the money you’re charging isn’t fair?’ said State Assemblyman John McKeon. Those statements were appalling, out of line.  What does that mean? That people in Paterson and Newark cannot have any guns or cannot apply for a concealed permit?”

Cruz continued, “I have a business with my wife. We do deliveries all times of the day in different cities and towns in the state of New Jersey. Just because there are people in the city who are unsafe doesn’t mean you’re going to have people every day out there with guns. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re criminals out there now, carrying guns. Every time I’m in the city of Paterson or in the south side of Newark, I have to watch my back and look behind me. So, why not give the same opportunities to the people in the inner city? To have the right to bear arms?”

Other priorities, such as contending with the high costs of gasoline occupy New Jersey’s urban residents’ minds, Cruz said as he decried the increase in fees for obtaining firearms.  “They’re not thinking about this bill. Most of those people don’t even know this bill exists. The statement State Assemblyman John McKeon said was utterly racist. For some of us, who sit here and did not say anything to the State Assemblyman about his comments, you are a part of the problem as well. Had that been a Republican, you would have had a field day in the media, calling the Republican a racist. Please review the bill, look at the bill.”

Cruz cited incidents in Paterson and Newark involving recent gun crimes, including a bust of 15 individuals caught selling illegal weapons and a student who brought a gun into a Newark high school. “This doesn’t mean this is going to stop illegal guns in our state,” Cruz said of the bill.  He concluded his remarks, saying, “Law-abiding responsible citizens deserve the right to bear arms.” 

(Visited 1,973 times, 1 visits today)

3 responses to “Cruz Takes Aim At ‘Discriminatory’ Gun Control Bill”

  1. Amendment 2:
    Right to Bear Arms
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    inted an Elector.
    Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  2. The Dems talk a lot about ‘equity’ and ‘inequality’ and racism. But they are the real racists. That is why they consistently pass laws that lock up young men of color. After drugs, ‘weapons’ offenses are the primary cause of arrests in urban areas. That is why uber liberal Public Defenders of NYC supported the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision; because even people of color should be able to carry arms for self defense.

    This gun package will not make anyone safer. Three rounds of gun laws have been passed in the last 5 years. And after each one, gun deaths have gone up. I am certain these ‘strict’ laws will only result in more of the same.

  3. this latest episode of political theatre is nothing more than disgruntled legislators thumbing their noses at the United States Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the right to concealed carry in this summer’s landmark Bruen decision.
    The vote on A-4769 may be over, but the outcome is serious doubt. Trenton lawmakers wasted a lot of taxpayer time and money with what looks to be a futile attempt to tell SCOTUS to pound sand.

    Concealed carry is here to stay, and Garden State politicians just haven’t accepted that reality yet. However, Monday’s Senate action moves them one step closer to getting hammered by the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time – more litigation. More litigation which the state will lose having this law overturned–at taxpayers’ expense.

    What needs to be done is that anyone voting and passing this bill should take the monies out of their own pockets and pay for the legal fees that the taxpayers would be paying to have this law shredded once again (after the Bruen decision). Start charging Trenton Democrats with the bill for these absolutely frivolous laws, and watch how fast the nonsense to violate ALL of our rights stops!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

News From Around the Web

The Political Landscape