Jump to content


Photo

No mandatory minimum for unlawful possession?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Zeke

Zeke
  • LocationDown by the river
  • Home Range:Nowhere yet

Posted 23 January 2017 - 09:38 AM

Lesniak . Aspiring to be governor introducing bill today.
http://www.nj.com/po...obileshort_home

A step in the right direction. Until, of course , national ccw trumps it....

#2 cabalrayz

cabalrayz
  • LocationBrick NJ
  • Home Range:CJRPC / EFGA

Posted 23 January 2017 - 09:41 AM

Lesbian? is that an auto-correct of Raymond Lesniak?



#3 Zeke

Zeke
  • LocationDown by the river
  • Home Range:Nowhere yet

Posted 23 January 2017 - 09:44 AM

Ya, I fixed it. Lol

#4 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 23 January 2017 - 10:47 AM

Lesniak is a bleeding heart liberal. This proposal will only allow all those gangbangers "packing heat" to walk when that's all their doing. He's playing with gun owners to let criminals off.

I see no step in the right direction here.

#5 fiddle

fiddle
  • LocationEWR

Posted 23 January 2017 - 11:43 AM

My thought has always been, if I'm about to get caught carrying, commit a crime, quick. Will probably get less time.
:)

#6 Zeke

Zeke
  • LocationDown by the river
  • Home Range:Nowhere yet

Posted 23 January 2017 - 12:00 PM

Lesniak is a bleeding heart liberal. This proposal will only allow all those gangbangers "packing heat" to walk when that's all their doing. He's playing with gun owners to let criminals off.

I see no step in the right direction here.

You know as well as I the gun charge gets dropped first.
Taking off your jersey lense. Why is possession of a firearm a crime? It's jus a tool. 12 other states have zero requirements for that possession.

#7 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 23 January 2017 - 12:28 PM

You know as well as I the gun charge gets dropped first.
Taking off your jersey lense. Why is possession of a firearm a crime? It's jus a tool. 12 other states have zero requirements for that possession.


No Jersey Lens here. If Lesniak wants to make possession of firearm legal make it legal. Not a no minimum time crime.

I know more so than most on this forum if a criminal pleas guilty the firearms charge is usually dropped. The criminal still goes away for the robbery, assault, or whatever else they did.

There are many more career criminals that get caught with possession of a firearm as the only charge. If that's the only charge there is nothing left to plea with.

Lesniak is one of the go to guys in the Democratic Party in NJ if you want to run for office and need money. When he was the victim of an armed robbery about 10 years ago he used the occasion to comment how having a gun does you no good if you are victimized. If you think he's proposing this as something good for legal gun owners you've already sipped his Kool Aid.

Yes a firearm is a tool. A hammer is designed to drive nails. A firearm is designed as a weapon. Firearms were not invented for 3 gun, USPSA, or other games (not that there's anything wrong with games). Firearms are weapons that belong in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Lesniak's bs proposal does nothing for gun rights. It's designed to let the criminals walk not save gun owners from jail.
  • bennj likes this

#8 Zeke

Zeke
  • LocationDown by the river
  • Home Range:Nowhere yet

Posted 23 January 2017 - 12:34 PM

I agree. But I understand baby steps and the snails pace of correction in Nj. Any step to the Right ( as in correct) is a positive.

Right now if you are ignorant of transport laws you're looking at time. This has been discussed here ad nauseam.

#9 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 23 January 2017 - 01:19 PM

I agree. But I understand baby steps and the snails pace of correction in Nj. Any step to the Right ( as in correct) is a positive.
Right now if you are ignorant of transport laws you're looking at time. This has been discussed here ad nauseam.


Discussed ad nauseum true. If you're a responsible driver you know the driving laws. If you're a responsible hunter you know the hunting laws. A responsible gun owner knows the transport laws. The Internet allows you to check on transport laws wherever you're going.

Lesniak pulls the party line. He's no different than Weinberg or any of the other NJ Democrats. If you dig back in the archives of this forum you will see how many championed Sweeney as being for gun rights and being a "regular" guy because he was a union guy.

This proposal allows liberal judges who live in more affluent neighborhoods to let thugs from Newark, Camden, Elizabeth, and the other Democrat strongholds back on the street. That helps keep the Democrat constituency. The otherwise law abiding gun owner who gets caught on that judge's neighborhood transporting illegally will still get prison time. If you don't think liberal judges do this research verdicts and sentences.

#10 Zeke

Zeke
  • LocationDown by the river
  • Home Range:Nowhere yet

Posted 23 January 2017 - 01:30 PM

Discussed ad nauseum true. If you're a responsible driver you know the driving laws. If you're a responsible hunter you know the hunting laws. A responsible gun owner knows the transport laws. The Internet allows you to check on transport laws wherever you're going.

Lesniak pulls the party line. He's no different than Weinberg or any of the other NJ Democrats. If you dig back in the archives of this forum you will see how many championed Sweeney as being for gun rights and being a "regular" guy because he was a union guy.

This proposal allows liberal judges who live in more affluent neighborhoods to let thugs from Newark, Camden, Elizabeth, and the other Democrat strongholds back on the street. That helps keep the Democrat constituency. The otherwise law abiding gun owner who gets caught on that judge's neighborhood transporting illegally will still get prison time. If you don't think liberal judges do this research verdicts and sentences.

In shall issue states there are penalties for possession without liscense. This is no different.
Pooling every individual that makes a mistake as a gangbanger is irresponsible and dishonest.
A prohibited person is still a prohibited person.
You would like Lesniak to go full constitutional carry with this bill? What do you think those chances of success are?



I think we can agree to disagree.

#11 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 23 January 2017 - 02:20 PM

In shall issue states there are penalties for possession without liscense. This is no different.
Pooling every individual that makes a mistake as a gangbanger is irresponsible and dishonest.
A prohibited person is still a prohibited person.
You would like Lesniak to go full constitutional carry with this bill? What do you think those chances of success are?
I think we can agree to disagree.


Shall issue states issue permits which identify you as a responsible person. Shouldn't be that way but at least shall issue states give you an option.

I'm not pooling "someone who makes a mistake" with gangbangers. Lesniak is doing that. Passage of his proposal will let hundreds if not thousands of gangbangers walk with no jail time vs a few "people who made a mistake". It's still a felony level conviction in either case. The "someone who made a mistake" will still lose their gun rights.

Lesniak is no friend of the gun owner. If he was he would introduce a progun bill. Don't let him fool you by throwing a bone.

#12 tomk62

tomk62
  • LocationLawrenceville
  • Home Range:OBRPC/TTC/Range 14

Posted 23 January 2017 - 02:36 PM

Seems to me the best gun laws are those that are not focused on controlling possession but rather focused on use, and there are stiff penalties for using a gun while committing another crime.


  • robot_hell likes this

#13 deerpark

deerpark

Posted 09 February 2017 - 07:42 PM

Not a fan of mandatory minimums on anything let alone simple possession of a firearm...


  • Fred2 likes this

#14 Fred2

Fred2
  • Home Range:West Patterson

Posted 09 February 2017 - 08:05 PM

It really should be up to a judge to rule on the evidence, and make a decision on that.

Mandatory minimums deprive the judge of doing his job, and can end up being much worse.



#15 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 09 February 2017 - 09:10 PM

Not a fan of mandatory minimums on anything let alone simple possession of a firearm...


It really should be up to a judge to rule on the evidence, and make a decision on that.
Mandatory minimums deprive the judge of doing his job, and can end up being much worse.


Mandatory minimums prevent a defendant from using influence in sentencing. It prevents things like rich kid from suburbia dealing drugs gets probation. Poor kid from the ghetto gets 10 years for the same thing.

Mandatory minimums have no effect on how a judge rules on evidence.
  • njpilot, High Exposure and tomk62 like this

#16 Fred2

Fred2
  • Home Range:West Patterson

Posted 10 February 2017 - 09:18 AM

Mandatory minimums get us 5 years for stopping at the burger king on the way home from the range.

It is a tool that cuts both ways.

 

Legislators love them because they make voters think they are being tough on "gun violence".



#17 GRIZ

GRIZ

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:24 AM

Mandatory minimums get us 5 years for stopping at the burger king on the way home from the range.
It is a tool that cuts both ways.
 
Legislators love them because they make voters think they are being tough on "gun violence".


No one ever was arrested because because they stopped to get something to eat, use the bathroom, or get gas coming home from a range in NJ. If you insist I'm wrong please find me a case of that happening. Google "NJ AG guidelines on "reasonable deviation" issued in April 2016. I guess you missed it. It considers all those things I mentioned and more as reasonable deviation.

Stopping at Burger King on the way home from the range will not get you 5 years. It's covered in those guidelines.

I'm not defending NJ gun laws. They need to be trashed and rewritten. They
do little, if anything, to deal with violent crime. There are pretrial intervention programs and other ways to deal with someone who made a "mistake".

Mandatory minimums do serve a useful function. They can be used as a bargaining tool to get bad guys to plea or flip on other criminals.

Lesniak is no friend of gun owners. A few years ago there were people on this forum who praised Sweeney as a progun guy.
  • High Exposure and tomk62 like this

#18 mipafox

mipafox

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:37 PM

Discussed ad nauseum true. If you're a responsible driver you know the driving laws. If you're a responsible hunter you know the hunting laws. A responsible gun owner knows the transport laws. The Internet allows you to check on transport laws wherever you're going.


Yup. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law of the lands.

War Paint


#19 deerpark

deerpark

Posted 14 March 2017 - 01:00 AM

Not a fan of mandatory minimums on anything let alone simple possession of a firearm...

 

Agreed.

 

Mandatory minimums are dangerous. 

 

There has to be discretion on a local level even if it means that some bad guys may get some leniency. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users