Follow Us:


  • Article
  • Comments

Poll: What Do You Think of the Governor's Veto of the Latest Gun Bill?

Is Chris Christie protecting the Second Amendment, pandering to his political base, or . . . ?

On Monday, Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed legislation that would have scaled back the size of the clips legally allowed in semi-automatic rifles in New Jersey, reducing magazine capacity to 10 rounds, down from 15. In place of the bill the governor sent the Legislature a list of reforms for strengthening the state's mental health system. Before vetoing the bill, Christie refused to meet with a delegation of parents of children murdered in the mass shooting at Newtown, CT. The governor also said that the gun lobby did not influence his veto.

What do you think of the Governor’s action?

  • He did the right thing. As he said, the difference between 15 and 10 rounds of ammunition is simply an arbitrary number. We have Second Amendment rights in this country and all efforts to infringe on these rights -- and New Jersey has plenty of infringements -- should be beaten back.

  • Christie has the right idea when it comes to looking at the issue holistically. Let’s face it, mental illness is what is really responsible for these mass shootings. People are grasping at straws if they think the number of rounds of ammunition in a gun is the real issue. What we need to do is focus on what’s important.

  • Let’s face it, even Joe Scarborough doesn’t believe Christie vetoed this legislation for any reason other than to pander to the Republican base. As Scarborough said, Christie can’t fully explain his veto because Christie doesn’t believe what he’s saying. Our governor is running for president and he doesn’t want to offend those in the GOP who are against any gun control measures. What can you say? It’s probably a smart move given his plans.

  • This is just another disappointing measure from Christie. Whether or not he really believes in his heart that a veto was necessary is immaterial. He used his veto on a commonsense measure that would protect lives. What does anyone in New Jersey, other than possibly law enforcement, need with a gun that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition? You don’t need that to protect your home or hunt for wildlife. On the other hand, it would force a mass shooter, like the one at Sandy Hook, CT, to reload and give law enforcement time to interrupt a shooting spree. Christie knows that and the fact that he wouldn’t meet with victims of the Sandy Hook shooting speaks volumes.

  • I don’t know what to think. I support the right to bear arms but not to the extent that it fosters mass shootings. We already have tough gun laws in this state but it seems like the reduction in the amount of ammunition a gun is allowed is a small commonsense measure that can save lives. Do members of the public really need this type of weapon to protect themselves? I’m not convinced.

Read more in Polling
Corporate Supporters
Most Popular Stories