Democrat NJ assemblyman John McKeon insinuates minorities shouldn’t be able to purchase firearms in state

Share:

The following may contain editorial content which is the opinion of the writer, a retired Police Chief and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

TRENTON, NJ- You know how Republicans are the ones who are always being called the racists? Despite numerous comments attributed to Joe Biden that are clearly racist in nature.

The latest example comes to us from the state of New Jersey, where a gun control bill is moving through the state assembly that would eviscerate gun rights in that state. A-4769 is being referred to by gun rights advocates as a “carry killer bill.”

It has often been noted that laws which undermine the Second Amendment rights of Americans unfairly targets minorities, who typically live in high-crime areas.

In many cases, those high-crime areas are located in major cities, which are overwhelmingly run by Democrats, who have made it their mission to defund or “reimagine” policing, which has caused a related spike in violent crime.

Unfortunately, those who pay the price of defunding the police are minorities. Now, with the additional burdens being placed upon them of confiscatory gun laws, it is even worse.

In New Jersey, one Democrat has actually said the quiet part out loud and expressed his true feelings about how he feels about minorities and call us crazy, but they sound pretty racist to us.

According to Bearing Arms, Democrat Assemblyman John McKeon is the racist in question.

Last week, there was an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting where A-4769 was being discussed. Under that bill, virtually the entirety of New Jersey would be defined as a “sensitive space,” which increases the financial burden on applicants seeking a permit to carry, a firearms ID card, or a permit to purchase a handgun.

The bill would place the following burdens on those seeking any of the above:

  • Provide more references;
  • Would require permit holders to have a currently non-existent insurance policy;
  • Would ban individuals from carrying their firearm in their vehicle
  • Spying on social media accounts

The law would be similar to a law passed in New York State, which will likely be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

One of the most vocal supporters of the measure is McKeon. Recently, McKeon was addressing one of his Republican colleagues, Vicky Flynn. Flynn has taken an approach that honors the Second Amendment, a position which continues because she believes…and believes everyone on the committee knows…that the bill is a bad one and moreover is not likely to pass constitutional muster.

https://fundourpolice.com/

McKeon, however, continued to criticize Flynn and other opponents of the bill, referring to then as disingenuous. He then made the following statement:

“…in my opinion, maybe tone deaf isn’t the right word as opposed to maybe a little bit disingenuous. Do you really do, either of you? Does anyone really want to put more guns in the hands of people that live in Patterson and Newark and Elizabeth and Camden, to say here, all the money you’re charging isn’t fair. That will make things safer. [emphasis added by source]

 

McKeon’s comments appeared to be in response to the suggestion by another Republican, Assemblyman Robert Auth, who asked if there should be a state program to offer financial support to those who seek permits who cannot afford them. The measure is clearly designed to discriminate against lower income people.

And what of McKeon’s remarks targeting the cities of Patterson, Newark, Elizabeth and Camden? Let’s to a deep dive into the demographics of each.

Patterson– White, 8.6%; Black, 29.4%; Hispanic, 57.2%

Newark– White, 10.7%; Black, 50.2%; Hispanic, 34.1%

Elizabeth– White, 14.1%; Black, 19.7%; Hispanic, 60.9%

Camden– White, 5.3%; Black, 47.8%; Hispanic, 42.5%

In other words, by specifically mentioning those four cities, and saying…out loud…that you shouldn’t “put guns in the hands” of people in those cities, what is McKeon really saying? Those specific cities, with overwhelmingly minority populations, were the ones mentioned by McKeon. Racism? Sure seems like it.

The proposed law is clearly intended to target lawful gun owners, not the criminal element the sponsors and do-gooders who support the bill claim to be targeting. Everyone with a modicum of common sense knows that bad guys don’t obey the law…that is why they are called criminals.

There are currently checks in place which should allow residents of any of the above cities…if they are background checked and law abiding…to purchase and carry a firearm. McKeon, however, doesn’t want the overwhelmingly minority residents of those cities to be able to defend themselves.

Of course, while most residents of New Jersey probably believe such laws are intended to stop gun violence from criminals, the sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Joe Danielson, admitted…out loud…that the bill is targeting lawful gun owners and has nothing to do with stopping the bad guys:

“The last thing I want to say to people, and some of my own Democrats have committed to me, a commented to me, this does nothing [to] stop the illegal gun trade, or the illegal criminal, illegal possessions, or criminal content and…you’re right. This doesn’t It was never supposed to address that.

“This is addressing the legal, law abiding, responsible citizens. That’s what it’s designed to do.”

Unbelievably, the bill is actually worse than that. It would actually prohibit a number of different objects to the point of absurdity.

For example, it would have made baseball bats illegal in ballparks, scalpels illegal in hospitals, and a number of other objects that could possibly be used as weapons prohibited from the same “sensitive areas” in which the firearms bill would be in effect.

The bill has also levied a number of felony level penalties for virtually every infraction defined in the bill. The term “weapon” was removed from the bill and substituted with “destructive device.”

The bill as defined would create a whole new class of felons; whether that was the intention or not is irrelevant. And in the process it wouldn’t punish the true criminals who are running roughshod over our cities…only the law-abiding.

Perhaps McKeon didn’t intentionally show his racism in making the statement he did about keeping guns out of four cities which are populated primarily by minorities. But he said it. He clearly doesn’t give a rip about the communities he purports to serve. And he certainly has some implicit bias within that pea brain of his.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts