NJ Hollow Point Arrest

[0ddl0t]

Given the reasonable man standard applied in most American quarts it would be hard to say that carrying ammunition specifically named as being New Jersey legal on the New Jersey State police website indicated any sort of criminal intent.

It would be more reasonable if the New Jersey State Police website did in fact say they were legal. It does not, it says only that they are not hollow points.

The law ought to be overturned on appeal for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is Miller's "in common use" standard. And I agree with several posters who feel the law/definition is unconstitutionally vague, but unfortunately the appeals courts have already ruled against that in the case of Brian Aitken (State v. Aitken).

[jd950]

Annnnnddddd......the reason for my post above. We should all be cautious about jumping to conclusions before all the information is in. This may not be the model anti-gun example it first appeared to be, although it still might...don't know yet.

Pretty likely a pretext stop, quite possibly racial profiling, and it is still N.J. which ranks on my desirable destination list somewhere around Venezuela and San Francisco. But I will still allow for the possibility of a good cop doing a good job, despite the general firearms law stink in his state. I hope the right side wins in this, but am not yet sure which side that is, despite my distaste for all things NJ.

One of the things to consider is that the back of this guys permit to carry may not have been published for a reason.

I wanted to check with a friend before posting this, but as I suspected most armed guard permits in NJ are restricted to carrying on the job.

It would not allow him to carry the weapon on his person, or in any manner except unloaded in a secured case in a separate compartment of the vehicle, separated from the ammunition.

The articles on this heavily focus on the fact that "he had a carry permit" and very heavily focusing on the JHP charge, while briefly brushing over the charge about improper transport of a firearm. The back of his permit is not displayed in the articles, likely because it would highlight the fact that he was not conducting himself in a legal manner.

That means something here is askew. It's very possible the officer was making a legitimate arrest for the transportation charge and the JHP charge was tacked on without much thought or consideration, but is being highlighted by the defense in an effort to paint a picture to garner support and sympathy for the defendant.

I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. I'm just offering up rational thought instead of hopping on the rage bandwagon, and suggesting that we all take a step back and conduct a SLLS check.

ETA: Just to be clear, the assertation in the article that the defendant is exempt from NJS 2C:39-9D due to possessing a permit under Chapter 58 is patently false.

[HCM]

It would be more reasonable if the New Jersey State Police website did in fact say they were legal. It does not, it says only that they are not hollow points.

The law ought to be overturned on appeal for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is Miller's "in common use" standard. And I agree with several posters who feel the law/definition is unconstitutionally vague, but unfortunately the appeals courts have already ruled against that in the case of Brian Aitken (State v. Aitken).

I can’t find anything stating exactly what ammo Aitken had so the decision may, or may not be relevant.

The real issue in New Jersey is that the New Jersey statute is written with the presumption that all firearms are illegal unless they fall into certain narrow exemptions. I believe that presumption alone makes New Jersey’s firearm statutes unconstitutional. It also offers great insight into how the powers that be in New Jersey view firearms. To me indicates they believe the peasants should be on armed. That is consistent with the baseness and corruption that is inherent in New Jersey government.

[HCM]

Annnnnddddd......the reason for my post above. We should all be cautious about jumping to conclusions before all the information is in. This may not be the model anti-gun example it first appeared to be, although it still might...don't know yet.

Pretty likely a pretext stop, quite possibly racial profiling, and it is still N.J. which ranks on my desirable destination list somewhere around Venezuela and San Francisco. But I will still allow for the possibility of a good cop doing a good job, despite the general firearms law stink in his state. I hope the right side wins in this, but am not yet sure which side that is, despite my distaste for all things NJ.

Just because one venue in New Jersey put restrictions on armed guard carry permit does not mean that all do.

One of the many issues with New Jersey firearms law is that New Jersey firearms purchase permits and carry permits are issued by a patchwork of judges and LE agencies whose only consistency is inconsistentcy. The whole system is arbitrary and capricious. It varies from one town to the next, one judge to the next in general and then there is also considerable variability depending on how well connected you are in local politics.

[Cypher]

Disregard

[TGS]

Just because one venue in New Jersey put restrictions on armed guard carry permit does not mean that all do.

Which is true, but we are talking about a state where even part-time cops/deputies are usually denied carry permits, even when presenting evidence of current, credible threats to their safety.

Given that, I'm highly skeptical that the subject's permit allowed carry off duty, when the only reason he had a permit is due to his employment.

Point being, we don't know all the facts, yet there's some inconsistencies to the story that make me think "these may not be the droids you're looking for" as it pertains to a 2A martyr to die on a hill for.

[TGS]

But since we're appealing to authority, I'd wager courts would assume a Merriam Webster definition more closely matches the intent of legislators than a definition from an expert no one outside the gun community knows.

This is without doubt one of the most ignorant, dumb things I've read on this forum since 2011.

Why do you insist on continually making baseless statements revolving around your ignorance? Do you actually wake up every morning with the goal of convincing everyone you're an imbecile?

I don't think the forum collective shares your aspirations.

[Cypher]

It would not allow him to carry the weapon on his person, or in any manner except unloaded in a secured case in a separate compartment of the vehicle, separated from the ammunition.

I realize that this would be a side side note but I'm envisioning this guy having to load and unload his weapon at work every day. That's a Negligent Discharge waiting to happen.

[blues]

To support @TGS in regard to the last post, I've been involved in quite a few trials from the 80's to the 2000's and have won all of those that I presented through the U.S. Attorney's office in NY and South FL.

In that time, I cannot recall an instance where the Merriam-Webster dictionary was used as an expert witness on any topic.

On the other hand, the testimony of expert witnesses, whose bona fides are established by the body of their work, education and experience in the realm under examination, has been utilized countless times.

I'm not sure what @0ddl0t does for a living or where his expertise lies, but he clearly appears to be out of his depth in this arena.

[LorenzoS]

One of the many issues with New Jersey firearms law is that New Jersey firearms purchase permits and carry permits are issued by a patchwork of judges and LE agencies whose only consistency is inconsistentcy. The whole system is arbitrary and capricious. It varies from one town to the next, one judge to the next in general and then there is also considerable variability depending on how well connected you are in local politics.

That's 100% intentional.

Even though this person will probably be found not guilty, he will have paid a hefty price in loss of employment, legal fees and anxiety. The message is meant to intimidate anyone from considering lawful gun ownership for fear of exactly this. Just like with Brian Aiken and Greg Revell.