Letter: Rep. Frelinghuysen To Support Gun Background Checks

Do you have something to say about a local issue? Then send a letter to the editor by emailing it to mike.donofrio@patch.com.

The following letter to the editor was written by Mandi Perlmutter. 

West Essex area residents have been shaken by recent crimes in our area, several involving firearms. Message boards in the community have revealed fears that our neighborhoods are becoming more dangerous.  Some residents have suggested that New Jersey's restrictive concealed carry permitting should be modified to make it easier for New Jerseyans to carry guns.

Encouraging more guns is reactionary and dangerous; we must work to stop the import of guns used in crimes rather than add firearms to volatile situations.

New Jersey has the highest level of illegal gun importation of any state in the country. Approximately 75 percent of crime guns in our state are purchased in other states. In fact, Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio was recently quoted as saying that almost 800 crime guns were obtained by Newark law enforcement in 2013 — none of them were actually purchased in Newark.

As illegal guns continue to flood New Jersey streets, it is likely that we will feel the effects in our communities more and more frequently.

Many of us might disagree about what should be done to make our community, our state and our country safer from gun violence. However, we should all agree that illegal guns have no place on our streets and we need to do more to keep them out.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11), the Congressman who represents the West Essex area, is one of six congressmen from the state who has not supported the expanded background check bill currently pending in the House (legislation that would make it harder for illegal guns to be brought into our state). 

You can call Rep. Frelinghuysen at 202-225-5034 and tell him you want him to do his part to make our community safer from illegal guns.

More information about gun reform efforts can be found at www.momsdemandaction.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.
Jack January 15, 2014 at 07:39 AM
NJ has the strictest gun laws in the country and you said, the criminals still get their hands on the guns - which is why reasonable people have been saying all along the gun control doesn't work. Concealed carry now!
MarkyMark January 15, 2014 at 09:01 AM
More idiocy from Mandi a rep from Monsanto Mommy's MDA. Yes because a background check is going to stop some scumbag from illegally selling a gun. Please tell me how these so called universal background checks will prevent illegal gun sales??? "Hold on Scumbag Bob, I need to run you through NICS before I sell you this gun you plan on using in a crime." Want to keep illegal guns off our streets? How about we stop cutting the police force in cities where crime is running rampant???? (Newark, Paterson, Camden etc)
Lena Simeone January 15, 2014 at 09:11 AM
I say "Put Legal Guns on the street" Help make NJ a safe place for the Law abiding citizens here and watch crime go down! We have a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). Make NJ a "Will Issue" State and give us our permits for CCW. America is and always will be a 2A place! Forever Free!
Mark January 15, 2014 at 09:18 AM
"Mandi"-perhaps you can explain exactly WHY those "illegal guns" are being imported to NJ, instead of simply being used in their origination state? Care to explain your fact finding mission and month long statistical analysis of that? Care to explain why--if you think that "more guns is reactionary and dangerous"--that NJ has a LAW which absolves NJ from any liability to protect its citizens? N.J.S.A. 59:2-4. Adoption or failure to adopt or enforce a law. A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt a law or by failing to enforce any law. N.J.S.A. 59:5-4. Failure to provide police protection. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. N.J.S.A. 59:5-5.Failure to make arrest or retain person arrested in custody. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody.
Michael Nikolis January 15, 2014 at 09:42 AM
Mandi, thank you for pointing out that NONE of the gun crimes that have occurred in Newark involve law abiding citizens. NJ residents wishing to legally own a firearm, must pass THREE background checks. Local, State and Federal.. And usually wait many months to complete those background checks. How do you propose we eliminate the firearms that are here illegally causing all of the gun violence? In the meantime, why not allow those law abiding citizens to exercise their natural right of self defense and legally carry a concealed weapon?
Paint January 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Line up my sheep . Who's the next victim ? The NJ voters made this bed now sleep in it . What's needed should be plan as the nose on your face . Real jail time without the comforts of a country club . For the thugs . Real judges and prosecutors who do not hand down plea deals . CCW as a deterrent to the thugs
Rick Bowles January 15, 2014 at 10:54 AM
Why not just enforce the current laws on the people that steal 400,000 guns every year? Less than 1% of guns from gun shows whether person to person or dealeer to person result in a gun crime.
Nina Perruccio January 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM
New Jersey is one of the strictest in the country. How would extended background checks on legitimate gun owners stop crime. The criminals don't have firearms id. If the guns are coming from other states, how come the states they are coming from don't have exploding crime like NJ. Maybe because NJ have more gangs and criminals living within it's borders than most states. How comforting (SARCASM) it is to know that our gangs and criminals have Hunkered down in NJ and put down stakes in our garden state. Congratulations Liberals, you have created a perfect storm with your entitlement society in the last 50 years. Your agenda has created this mess, and you continue to support it with creeping unconstitutional laws to create a state of New Jersey full of potential victims.
Nina Perruccio January 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Mandi- How do you propose to stop the gangs and criminals from obtaining illegal guns from other states. Our country can't even stop illegal aliens from crossing the borders. How in the world, or should I say, how in YOUR WORLD, do you think our law enforcement is going to stop criminals from obtaining guns? Your logic is laughable, as is your Moms demand attention organization. Put on your Mommie Boots and hit the streets in Newark. Maybe a Mommie can convince the gangs to stop the violence in NJ.
jennifer reinhardt January 15, 2014 at 12:48 PM
The laws in place are there to "make it harder to bring illegal guns into our state". How is adding more laws going to "make it harder". Enforce what is already there! These additional laws only "make it harder" for me to protect my family! The criminals don't care about laws!
Pete MacNeal January 15, 2014 at 02:37 PM
Mandi, You said something to the affect of "not to have more guns on the streets" .. It certainly wouldn't be the case. It would be in our waist band and Never Come out until my life or the life of my kids was in jeopardy. It won't come out because someone bumps me walking into a store .. I'll simply say excuse me. It won't come out because someone cuts me off in traffic .. I'll simply wave that we are both ok. It WILL only come out if I'm being robbed or someone wants to take my family. Do you Understand that -that is what law abiding people act like??? We have self control. CCW now.
Ryan Krizen January 15, 2014 at 06:26 PM
Not one gun control law has ever prevented a criminal from using a gun to commit a crime. Criminals exempt themselves from laws while the rest of us are disarmed by them an unable to protect themselves. Depending on who you believe 8 million legally armed Americans in 47 states that recognize the citizens right to carry firearms for self defense use firearms to PREVENT crime between 1.5 and 2 million times a year. Disarming me because a violent criminal used a gun just makes it easier for the criminal to victimize me. Want to make it harder to be a violent criminal - let the victims fight back.
Susan January 16, 2014 at 08:39 AM
Ryan, that first sentence is unprovable on its face. And while I hear all the time that gun-carrying citizens are preventing crime (from those who like to carry guns), I can't think of too many (any, really) that have actually happened. And Pete, you say we're supposed to just believe you have self-control. Well, you probably do but that retired police officer who just killed the guy in the movie theatre because he didn't like him texting probably was considered to be safe with a firearm, until he did that. The rest of us have a right to be concerned, and I think the onus ought to be on those who want to carry guns to reassure us, instead of getting angry at us.
Jack January 16, 2014 at 08:59 AM
Susan, why do you and your fellow liberals insist on inventing "rights" out of thin air? There is no such thing as a "right to be concerned" or a "right to feel safe." But I'll remind you that there is a "right to bear arms" and it like the rest of my constitutionally protected civil rights, it does not end at my door step.
Rev. Susan Gillespie January 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM
why do you and your fellow conservatives think that my rights end where yours begin on all kinds of subjects, until it comes to something you want to do? Constitutional rights also have limits (eg, your first amendment right to free speech ending if you want to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre) and are regulated. Yes, I know that a guns rights champion lost his job by saying so, but firing him didn't make it any less true. Yes, I have a right to be concerned about my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that right came before the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to abridge it. Nor should I have to be armed in a theatre to give someone else second thoughts before he shoots me over my texting!
Jack January 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Another false analogy. We don't gag everyone in the theater because someone might yell fire. We prosecute people people who do instead. A right cannot be denied without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Just as you cannot disarm me because you're afraid I might commit a crime. And once again, there is no such thing as a "right to be concerned" anywhere in any law. Much as this might be a shock to you, nobody cares how you feel.
Rev. Susan Gillespie January 16, 2014 at 11:18 AM
I don't want to disarm you. I want you to be involved in the process of discovering and disarming the people who are dangerous. I don't want it all to be on me and others like me, while the gun-rights crowd sit back and assume they'll just shoot the bad guy.
Jack January 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM
At least be honest Susan. You know that's a lie. You want everyone disarmed period. I've already been through three background checks (when I got my FID card, my pistol purchase permit, and the instant check at time of purchase). I've been fingerprinted like a criminal. I've provided character references, employment references, and page after page of personal information. Still NJ demands that I prove to a court that someone is trying to kill me before they grant me my right to self defense. There is nothing I can do that would please you because you're fundamentally opposed to guns and are not even remotely interested in compromise.
Rev. Susan Gillespie January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM
I'M not remotely interested in compromise? Yes, I wish guns had never been invented. But of course I understand that now that they are, and now that they've flooded the market, there are situations that are going to demand law-abiding, peace-loving people to use them. I'm glad you've had to do all that to get a gun, because I can't understand why we'd make people go through half that just to buy Sudafed and NOT make people go through that to get a gun. I think people like me compromise quite a bit. I don't have a personal opinion on you or what more you should do . My pique is about people who truly believe that guns should be as available as candy and regard any effort to regulate them as a personal attack. Clearly you've done your bit to be a responsible gun owner, and I appreciate that.
Jack January 16, 2014 at 12:22 PM
Law abiding gun owners have been compromising more and more since The National Firearms Act was first passed in 1934. Every time gun control fails to stop a crime, gun grabbers demand more gun control and more "compromise" even though you are never asked to give up anything. Time and time again, law abiding people have allowed gun grabbers to place more and more burden on the exercise of a natural born right that despite your lack of understanding, is every bit as important and sacred as your right to worship, speak, vote, or not have your body cavities arbitrarily searched. Now the laws are so poorly written that the only people being protected are the bad guys and good people are dying because of it. So we are no longer interested in your "compromises." We demand our rights back. We were stupid to take you at your word in the first place and will never again let it slide when you lie to us about "compromise."
Pete MacNeal January 16, 2014 at 03:52 PM
Susan, On the news outlets that I purposefully look for- they report on the many times life is defended. Unfortunately our current main news casts generally only look for bad gun reports. As far as the retired LEO in the movie theatre, I was not their.. I have zero clue what went on in that theatre. One report was that he hit the man, but again, wasn't their so I won't even say if that was true. Bottom line for us, Millions of guns do not harm people everyday.. while bad people can simply beat someone with their fists. I've been through all of the checks, other states do less for CCW and still, I am not aloud to stop at a wawa on my way to the range (because that is against the law) with a pistol locked in my trunk. I had a ccw when I was a PA res. so I can for sure tell you that I had life experience with being a good citizen while carrying. Oh, and I can for sure tell you I would never flip in a non threatening situation... it would mean I would go away and not see my kids for a long time. Not worth it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something