NJ Hollow Point Arrest

[CWM11B]

Are +p rounds illegal in SF? Asking because I dont know. If they are, is it SF ordinance or a CA state law? Just curious. CA is also a no go zone for me.

[HCM]

While I agree with this, the best this guy can hope for is that they drop charges and he goes back to having a job. No way in hell he is going to get any relief on against the cop. Maybe he can get some action on false arrest, but shouldn't hold his breath.

He might not get relief in the New Jersey state courts but the New Jersey case is a federal civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen.

[HCM]

Are +p rounds illegal in SF? Asking because I dont know. If they are, is it SF ordinance or a CA state law? Just curious. CA is also a no go zone for me.

As I recall San Francisco has a municipal ordinance prohibiting non LE from possessing “law enforcement only” ammunition.

It is not a state law and makes no mention of plus P ammunition.

@AMC

[Lester Polfus]

He might not get relief in the New Jersey state courts but the New Jersey case is a federal civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen.

It's pretty rare for me to say this, but if the facts that are presented are accurate, I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

[HCM]

Speaking of lawsuits with cops on the least toast. Warning, allegedly alleged allegations in the article ahead.

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/loc...ch/4934376002/



Here's the suit dox.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...t-Lawsuit.html

So he lives in Westchester and had a New York state issued carry permit. Many of the suburban counties around New York City put administrative restrictions on their carry permits, restricting them to while target shooting, hunting etc. and to and from those activities. Even if that is the case it is an administrative issue not a criminal issue. The most that should’ve happened was the handgun being seized and the licensing authority for Westchester county being notified. They would likely suspend his handgun license pending an investigation and require him to surrender any other license handguns but again it is not a criminal matter.

Regarding the ammunition capacity issue, I’m assuming the officer charge them for having 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine instead of only seven but as noted in the lawsuit that provision of the New York safe act was found unconstitutional.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the municipal court judge held an arraignment with no defense attorney present and no clerk or recording device recording the proceedings. Even if the officer didn’t know what he was doing the judge should have. I think they have a hell of a lawsuit.

[HCM]

It's pretty rare for me to say this, but if the facts that are presented are accurate, I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

I normally give cops the benefit of the doubt but I know north jersey is a wretched hive of corruption nepotism and anti gun hysteria.

Roselle Park has about 40 officers and is a mostly white suburb located between two larger minority communities. Given that this stop was based on a window tent violation I believe tne RPPD officers were “fishing.” While I believe in proactive law-enforcement and turning over rocks, if you flip over a rock and there’s nothing there you send people on their way with a warning not trump up a bunch of b******t on a square citizen.
.

.

[TGS]

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.

[Lester Polfus]

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.

The plot thickens.

Also, here in Washington state, I would probably rather work in the drive-through at McDonalds than in a low rent armed security/armored transport job. In New Jersey, I would ABSOLUTELY rather work in the drive-through window at McDonalds.

[0ddl0t]

Are +p rounds illegal in SF? Asking because I dont know. If they are, is it SF ordinance or a CA state law? Just curious. CA is also a no go zone for me.

There is no general prohibition against +P, the ban prohibits only rounds that are not available in civilian packaging (and +P HSTs seem to only come in 50 round law enforcement packaging):

Police Code Article 9 Prohibited Ammunition


Section 618 (a) Definition. For purposes of this Section, "Prohibited Ammunition" shall mean:

(1) Ammunition sold under the brand name "Winchester Black Talon," or that has physical
properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to ammunition presently or formerly sold
under the brand name Winchester Black Talon; or,

(2) Ammunition designated by its manufacturer for purchase by law enforcement or military agencies only, unless other ammunition is available to the general public that has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to such ammunition.

San Francisco also has a ban on armed guards drawing from a holster unless engaging a lethal threat. There is no exemption for the practice range. Of course, the city & county already shut down the last gun store and gun range, but still...

[Hambo]

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.

All good points, and I thought someone here had mentioned something similar about armed guards. That said, even if the guy was in violation, absent other crimes/issues, they could have given him some officer discretion and a firm warning. That doesn't seem to be a thing in Jersey, though.