Chris Christie Used to Be Against Terrorist Suspects Getting Guns

Now he may be more worried about the NRA.

Dennis Van Tine/STAR MAX/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Days after a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people, and one day after President Barack Obama called for more gun safety measures in a speech addressing the attack, GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie bolstered his support of gun rights. As news surfaced that the assault weapons used in San Bernardino were purchased legally due to a loophole in California’s assault weapons ban, Christie said during a radio interview that Obama’s call for limits on assault weapons was “absurd.”

This was one of the New Jersey governor’s many recent efforts to showcase his pro-guns stance. Last month, he conditionally vetoed a bill that would have made it harder for domestic abusers to own guns. He also recently vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement to be notified when a person who had been institutionalized for mental illness seeks to expunge his mental health record when applying for a gun permit. And in the past year, he pardoned five people in New Jersey who were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

But for most of his two decades in politics, Christie has been a supporter of gun safety measures. In 1993, during his failed campaign for state Senate, he cited Republican efforts to repeal New Jersey’s assault weapon ban as his inspiration for entering politics. He repeated his support of the assault weapons ban in 1995 when running for the state Assembly. In his 2009 gubernatorial campaign, Christie voiced his opposition to a federal bill that would have made it easier for permit holders to carry firearms across state lines. As governor, he signed nearly a dozen pieces of legislation restricting guns in 2013, including one that barred individuals on the federal terror watch list from obtaining a permit to buying a gun in New Jersey. His consistent support for gun control has earned him a C, the lowest rating from the National Rifle Association among the top GOP presidential candidates. In 2014, New Jersey was voted one of the worst states for gun owners by Guns & Ammo magazine. 

Yet late last month on CNN, Christie refused to express support a proposed bill in Congress that seeks to close this same terror watch list loophole nationwide, saying that he believes this sort of rule-making should be left to states.

When he’s been questioned about his newfound support of gun rights, Christie has insisted it’s an authentic evolution. “I have grown up a bit and changed my view and been educated on it,” Christie said on Face the Nation last Sunday, when asked about his previous support for an assault weapons ban. Christie said his views began to change when he became a prosecutor and saw that firearms are necessary for law enforcement to manage crime.

Though the NRA has yet to revise its rating for the candidate, Christie has won critical support in New Hampshire—a key primary state and also a GOP electorate that tends to oppose stricter gun control. Last month, Christie won the endorsement of the state’s largest newspaper, the New Hampshire Union Leader. He’s since been endorsed by the state’s House and Senate majority leaders, and several other political figures.

Christie’s revamped position on guns seems to have convinced many of New Hampshire’s leaders that he could win a pro-gun constituency. But the most fervently pro-gun groups in the state aren’t sold. On Wednesday, the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, one of two major gun rights groups in the state, sent an email blast to its members warning them to be wary of Christie’s purported Second Amendment bona fides.

“Don’t be fooled!” writes NHFC in its message, outlining Christie’s pro-gun-control history. “The truth is Chris Christie has been an anti-gun activist for his entire political career…Being pro-gun is doing the right thing when no one is looking.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate