Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    33
  • views
    335

Fear Mongering in N.J. 2A

JasonSeidman

1,520 views

It’s no secret that it isn’t easy being a New Jersey firearm owner. We battle gun control activists, all branches of our State government, and most recently, ourselves. With the reduction of permissible magazine capacity from 15 to 10 rounds, firearm owners, Second Amendment advocates, and others have voiced concern from “the sky is falling” to “so what?”  

I’m not in either camp. I do not believe the sky is falling, nor am I indifferent to the new restrictions on our constitutional rights. That said, powerful voices within the Second Amendment community are seeking to warn that the sky is falling. Many call this fear mongering, and I agree. It may be an attempt to rally the troops, so to speak, but I don’t think that is the outcome or the intent of the warnings. 

Members of the pro 2a community have seen warnings of varying severity as of late.  There have been warnings of mass raids on those who own firearms capable of accepting large capacity magazines.  There have been warnings that Governor Phil Murphy must conduct raids for fear of political retribution.  There have been articles posted speaking of searches of homes without probable cause (during a search for terrorist bombers).  There have been threats that people are facing consecutive 18 month prison terms and aggregated sets of $10,000 fines totaling 115 years in jail and a million in fines.  

Let me say that I disagree with the new restrictions on our constitutional rights, disagree with recent court opinions upholding these restrictions, and support the advent of a system that would allow from the permissible carry of firearms in New Jersey. 

Full disclosure, I can’t call this legal advice as I can’t predict every scenario, but I can offer some perspective and try and quell some of the fear that has been heightened over the last few days. That’s not to say that there should be no fear, the government has just infringed on our constitutional rights and our Governor and Attorney General are hostile to our cause, but the onslaught currently occurring, is making people think tomorrow is the day my local PD raids my home because I own a Glock 19 or a Beretta 92fs. 

As we stand here, on the eve of many of our friends turning into criminals for doing nothing more than inaction, and we stand here having had our constitutional rights limited, illegally and against our will, I thought people could use another perspective.  A perspective on seeking to help some of us figure it out, and not scare some of us into hiding or moving out of state and reducing the size of the community here to support the Second Amendment. 

We, those of us on discussion groups and forums, are among the most educated gun owners in the State. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the state, but Facebook groups and forums have 2,000 to 10,000 people participating in the discussion. Quite honestly, I’d expect Joe Schmo gun owner, who got a pistol after watching the expendables because it looked cool, who really has no idea about the mag ban or his Second Amendment rights, to run afoul of the law before any of us do. That said, I hope, that any person who unknowingly or mistakenly brings a “large capacity magazine” to a range or gun club, is told to take it home or throw it out, and not have the police called on them. I can’t imagine any range that did that would be in business long anyways.

I have a hard time with someone, especially someone knowledgeable, suggesting that the simple act of owning a gun that can accept large capacity magazines, is grounds for large scale raids.  That IS fear mongering.  Raids require search warrants. Search warrants require probable cause. Probable cause has to be determined by a Judge, yes a New Jersey Judge, but a Judge nonetheless.  It’s not some willy nilly standard. There have to be proofs of the illegality, descriptions of the items they are seeking, and enough facts, specific facts, to overbear your fourth amendment rights. I have participated in a large amount of search warrants, from the drafting of the affidavit, to appearing with the officer in front of a Judge, defending search warrants on motions to suppress, and challenging searches based on the fourth amendment. I would not approve an officer seeing a judge, nor would I ever expect a judge to approve a search warrant based on the following:

“John Doe is a resident of New Jersey.  In 2009, he purchased a Beretta 92fs, a 9 millimeter pistol.  That firearm is capable of accepting a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds. Based upon the previous, we believe that we have probable cause to believe that he has a large capacity magazine.”  

Even in New Jersey that isn’t going to fly.  It’s probable cause to believe, not a hunch. Without more, that’s simply a hunch. That isn’t to say that information won’t be part of an application for a search warrant, but there must be more. Someone witnessing a large capacity magazine, posting photos of their large capacity magazines to social media, or bragging about keeping them or using them could certainly further the quest to search a home. What I find sad, is with specific knowledge of what is required for a search warrant, people are still stoking the fires of fear regarding mass raids.

A general understanding of New Jersey sentencing law, or even common sense demonstrates that no one is actually facing 115 years in jail or a million dollars in fines for possessing non compliant large capacity magazines. That doesn’t mean that those sentiments aren’t being floated around the 2a community.  The law prohibits the possession of magazines over 10 rounds just like it prohibits possessing hollow points outside of the limited exceptions of title 39 of our criminal code. Not even New Jersey would allow for punishment per bullet, a 50 round box allowing for a maximum sentence of 75 years or a super dangerous box of 525 .22’s hollow points allowing for a maximum sentence of 787 years in jail. Similarly, simple possession of 50 large capacity mags will not get you 75 years. With very limited exception, fines other than mandatory ones are not doled out very often in Superior Court. I’d say I’ve seen 10 defendants receive discretionary fines in my career of thousands of cases in Superior Court, and never, ever, have I seen the maximum fine levied. That said, with no record and being a lawful gun owner, possession of a prohibited device such as a large capacity magazine is a fourth degree crime, which means that there is a presumption of non-incarceration. Having no record, a person is more likely to have pretrial intervention or probation than face the grim prospect of 18 months in prison, let alone 115 years. I’m in no way saying I agree that it should be illegal, but likely punishment potential needs to be kept in perspective and not allowed to run amok. 

A suggestion was also made by a prominent voice that exigency would allow for warrantless searches of homes. In support, an article was cited Related to the 2013 Boston bombing, though oddly making no mention of the bombing or the search being for the bombers. To place that into context, several people, including an unsuspecting law enforcement officer were murdered. Hundreds were maimed, hurt, and mutilated. The police were on a manhunt for a terrorist who literally blew up part of Boston, not an illegally retained Glock magazine. It’s pretty imbecilic to think that their ulterior motive was to nail unsuspecting gun owners.

Instead of stoking the aforementioned flames of fear and telling people to prepare for mass raids for non-compliant magazines, It might be more instructive to inform people, many whom do not posses sophisticated knowledge of the law, with some of their rights. 

If Law Enforcement Officers show up and ask to see your weapons or gun safe, you are free to say no.  That is your home and the fourth amendment guarantees that you shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in it.  Be careful though, as well trained Law Enforcement are very slick.  They will try their hardest and may say anything to get into your home if that is their mission.  They can’t arrest you for not consenting, but they sure might bluff.  That’s all it is, a bluff. 

If Law Enforcement ask you questions such as “do you have magazines that are non-compliant,” you are free to remain silent.  Don’t lie, just be silent and say I don’t wish to speak with you. It is easier said than done as police are instructed on how to manipulate targets to get them to allow searches, waive miranda, etc.  

If the Police threaten that they will get a search warrant if you don’t consent, tell them ok.  They have as much a right to attempt to obtain a search warrant as you do to deny their request for a consent search.  It’s an absolute they will get in and search if you consent. It’s not absolute that they will be granted a search warrant, and if they do, you can challenge it later in court. 

If people are worried about parts of the law, they should speak directly with a lawyer about their particular situation so that they can get accurate advise.   That’s my 2 cents, feel free to disregard, I won’t force anyone to do or believe anything, I just want you to know their are other informed opinions out there that aren’t total doom and gloom.

 

About me: I’m a proud supporter of the Second Amendment, a criminal defense attorney and Managing Attorney at the Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall, and a former Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor who ran the County gang, gun, and drugs task force.  See my Blog: An American Thinketh



26 Comments


Recommended Comments



You claim none of us will receive an 18 month jail sentence for possessing a 15 round mag yet that is precisely the purpose of the legislation. Murphy and his fellow totalitarians in the NJ legislature and judiciary want nothing less than eradication of legal gun ownership in this state. If that means throwing every gun owner in jail for spurious, unconstitutional crimes then so be it.

It is settled law in NJ that "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril". So yeah, perhaps some of us would get off with a fine and no jail time (and loss of the right to ever own a firearm again), but there's no guarantee and that's precisely the point. For someone whose dealings with law enforcement never extended beyond a speeding ticket, the prospect of a felony prosecution, possible jail time, and the loss of their constitutional rights - not to mention the potential deleterious effect on their future employment prospects - is a massive incentive to get on the first train out of here.

You categorize as imbeciles those who believe the intent of this legislation is to "nail unsuspecting gun owners". Given the public record of NJ courts and the legislature, it's the imbecile who believes otherwise.

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

very good advice, dont forget , a warrant is limited in its scope , if they are looking for x then where would x typically be. say you give consent to say look in your safe, then please dont forget consent can be revoked at any time. look in my safe and night stand typical places where one could hide x doesnt mean look in your kids rooms etc. 

Consent is always often done with a written signed form by you, this gives the officer permission and acts as proof they asked and you verbally consented .one could say write in, the scope of looking around is limited to XXXX. I never in a hundred years thought we would be talking about this in the unites states of America. well this is the peoples republic of nj.  sadly shaking head. worst case read anything you sign, call your attorney. not saying this will happen but knowledge is power. It will go like any other state. wife or neighbor calls, burglary or fire investigation etc, and x is found during that. 

Any officer can ask to look at anything, probable cause is needed for a warrant. unless there is an immediate threat to public safety. persons and cars basicly moveable objects are easier to search if you know what your doing, homes are tougher to obtain search warrants for, there probable cause is the bench mark. oh yes and dont forget , gray area is any adult occupant kid, wife or uncle staying over for holiday can certainly open that door and say sure come on in eben if your not home. I need to stop here, this is a public forum, the last thing we need is bad guy learning the ropes. if any other leo or attorney or anyone else care to add feel free.

Share this comment


Link to comment

We live in a state where 2A rights have been raped by multiple levels of government for years.  A state where children have been suspended from school for participating in legal, sanctioned, shooting sports activities while under the direct supervision of their parent on the weekend.  I find it offensive that anyone should dare attempt to suggest that it is beyond the capability of these socialist elitist dictators to violate our 4th amendment rights while pursuing their goal of disarming citizens.    

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think we are suppose to be offended by the blank they do.  There is so much more to be offended by... mag limitations, one gun a month, duplicate background checks, horrendous time frames, unsanctioned stops...   Hollow heads ban hollow points!

 

Off topic a litlte... but more offensiveness... a school assignment to create a fairy tale.  She was instructed to include some kind of horrible thing per the "formula" for fairy tales... poisoning, beheading, knife attack... but was told that in no way shape or form  could guns be included.  I am so tired of the brainwashing and conditioning of our youth.  I saw a poster in school about having the Right to a safe playground. That is a nice to have, expectation, and all, but it is NOT a right.  

Share this comment


Link to comment

What the Fudd!  Are gun owners acting illogically with their fears?

I want to revisit.  I was hoping that others would comment about it and ponder what its purpose was, and in particular because others have agreed with it in followup comments.  Kudos to Regular Guy.    It is important because this is setting a dangerous precedent and free men and woman should not be in fear at all.  ALL of this fundamentally changes the relationship of the individual to his or her government and abuses can and will happen.  The pendulum is still swaying the wrong way as more and more naturalized citizens are made legally and illegally and the ones already here are being brainwashed and further conditioned to be neutered.  

I am really not getting the gist of what you are saying unless you are trying to trump up business.   Yes, we should all know our rights which in NJ are not always followed and yes a good attorney can help enlighten us.  For example, we have a right to KEEP and BARE Arms.  Yet, in reality ALL firearms have been made defacto illegal in NJ, which is actually not lawful.  We have a right against unlawful searches and seizures unless someone drops a red flag?  How can one be OK with having rights when they are being taken away or interpreted by radical judges.  Honest law-abiding citizens are "reasonable" but what were you trying to say, having a little fear is OK?  How often do gun owners get a jury made up of actual gun owners?   If you only go to jail for 1 day for a mala prohibita that's OK as long as it isn't for 75 years?  Only a 10 thousand dollar legal fee is OK.   I still don't know what your "well-written" piece that others agree lock, stock and barrel  is about.  Are we being overrun by over-emotional firearms owners that are going to crack under the unjust pressure?    Are those bringing these happenings to the attentions of the masses doing something wrong or exaggerating?  Are people not savvy enough or or they unaware of their rights?    There have been countless examples in NJ of criminals not having the laws enforced (plea bargaining down, etc.) while law-abiding citizens are entrapped and/or prosecuted and made examples of.   

Lets look at a hypothetical example, a citizen's rights get violated and she is harassed because her 12-year old playing Fortnight often mentions the word AR15 in school.  Or what about if you get in a disagreement with your liberal brother about where to have brunch for Easter and he calls your local police department and says he is afraid.   Or, maybe your husband has been working too much and so you decide to cheat and then get a divorce and your attorney decides to have a restraining order placed on him.  Hello?  

If I want to get a coffee or go to the bathroom on my way to the range, or pickup a friend to go with me (it is safer to be at the range with others) then I don't want to be in fear.   For now I guess I will just hold it and hope the plumbing at the range is functioning.

Slow on the draw?  What am I missing?

Where are cases with precedence that illustrate that our law enforcement and legal system are reasonable?   As an assistant DA did you protect citizen's rights? 

By the way, I commend the OP for being a 2nd Amendment supporter and it looks like he  put a lot of work into his blog. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Underdog said:

What the Fudd!  Are gun owners acting illogically with their fears?

I want to revisit.  I was hoping that others would comment about it and ponder what its purpose was, and in particular because others have agreed with it in followup comments. 

I (perhaps others?) interpreted Jason's post more narrowly than you did. I felt he was referring quite specifically to some of the muckraking articles implying there could be broad "door-to-door searches" for >10 round magazines taking place.  I thought that was the primary point of his post (I'm sure he'll weigh in himself to clarify that).

You OTOH are giving a more sweeping appraisal of what's happening in this state - and in the country - and I do agree the encroachment on individual rights is alarming.

Of everything, I am personally MOST concerned about these pernicious "red flag" laws. As you point out, the big problem is human nature: the ill-intentioned neighbor looking to make trouble... the angry spouse seeking to gain leverage for divorce/child custody hearings, etc. From what I've seen, the vast majority of these laws (including the NJ one) have NO built-in penalty for false accusation, and all the cost for fighting an unfounded accusation is borne by the accused. It's encouraging bad actors as far as I'm concerned. 

These red flag laws are not only worrisome for how they run afoul of multiple Constitutional rights (in my admittedly non-lawyer opinion), but I think they have another purpose that's even more nefarious: to drive gun ownership underground, and to "demonize" it. And what's most ridiculous of all... the laws may well have even uglier unintended consequences. Let's take that statistically rare case where a legal gun owner actually IS a threat... the police swoop in and take his guns away under a red flag law, sooo... now what? He can buy them illegally... make one.... buy a machete... rent a big, bone-crushing box truck... rig up some pipe bombs, etc. The gun was never the threat, but if the person was... well, now you've taken his property, humiliated him, saddled him with debt, and set him back out on the street...and now he's actually got a damned good reason to be angry and vengeful! How does this make any sense? I think these red flag laws are disastrous.

So, yes, I don't disagree with you, @Underdog, that there is a  steady and increasing encroachment of individual rights taking place, and not just against the 2A, but other rights as well. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

@Underdog, if you go back in time to when this article was written, there were several prominent 2A figures creating a super unrealistic atmosphere of fear, as @Mrs. Peelsaid above.  I in no way believe we should be complacent or just sit and take it (as i said in my article), but creating that fear, knowing full well it was unrealistic was unfortunate and unnecessary.  I instead sought to give a realistic approach with practical advice for people.  As i said above, our rights were violated, more is coming - but i am no fan of scaring people just to scare them, or whatever purpose they had in their outrageous suggestions.  

While most of your response was polite and appropriate, I take severe issue with your insinuation of me using this to try to drum up business.  I was not the one telling people the Gestapo was coming, NJSP was going to go door to door, that murphy will have to do raids because of political pressure for his laws to work, that ownership of a Beretta 92 or Glock 19 was sufficient for police to get a warrant (on an interesting side note, my 92, which i bought used, actually came with 10 round mags from factory oddly enough).  The person who did that, is the same guy who speaks from location to location for $10 dollars a head.  you would think his fear mongering, knowing full well it was just that, was designed to drum up business and get bodies in the seats.  

Nothing in my article was about restricting free speech, red flag laws, reasonable detours, or the like.  This was about one issue, prominent 2a figures telling people that the police will be raiding them for a variety of reasons related to magazines or that they face decades in jail for them.  

Out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you heard of solely based upon non-compliant magazines?  Heard of any doors kicked in for solely owning a Glock 19 and its ability to accept large capacity magazines?  How many people have been sentenced to consecutive 18 month terms for these non-compliant magazines?  How many otherwise law abiding gun owners have been charged for solely a non-compliant magazine?

Dont mistake me calling out nonsense with me being ok with the trampling of our rights.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this comment


Link to comment
22 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

These red flag laws are not only worrisome for how they run afoul of multiple Constitutional rights

Red Flag law are very worrisome.   I already had a leftwing loon threaten me personally with it..

Of course i contact the NJSP, ATF and Local PD once he said it.... Thats the problem with these idiotic laws... they are to be used against us for any reason. Never underestimate the lengths they will go.

 

222Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 11.27.01 AM.jpg

  • Agree 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Again, what is the point?   Specific examples or in general.  ANY fear is unjust.  It is time to rile up the Fudds.  No, the sky isn't falling, but the golf ball sized hail stones are forming up in those clouds.  Do we want to wait until we are out in the middle of a field with no cover?  What is the point?  Are you trying to say that we gun owners and prominent 2nd Amendment voices are taking advantage of a restrictive turn of events?  Are you trying to say that I shouldn't get my heart rate up as I have to get rid of my legal property which I cannot even transport legally?   And, you brought up what happened in Boston.  The police were NOT in hot pursuit of a suspect.  They did NOT have a constitutional right to do what they did, and there seemed to be examples of excessiveness even in that excessiveness.  What happened in New Orleans shouldn't have happened either.  How reasonable and compromising should we be?    When these outspoken leaders of the First Freedom said this stuff did they cultivate mass hysteria in the gun community.  Was there rioting outside of gun shows?    i am exaggerating, but I am trying to make a point.  I do know that I lost property and have less options than I did around this time last year and i don't feel ANY safer in my own predicament or against thugs.  

 

And are you saying that if my son bit a cookie into the shape of an AR, that I reasonably shouldn't have any fear that a SWAT Team might show up at my house in the middle of the night and pet my German Shepherd?  Or lets say a couple of State troopers.  And if I get stopped for a traffic offense while going to the range, I shouldn't have to worry that a peace offer won't be a little overzealous and underinformed and let someone else sort it all out.

No disrespect, but I shouldn't need you or any other attorney to assist me with living my life and wondering if my Glock 19 that I legally purchase and use lawfully is on the up and up and compliant?.  Any reasonable gun owner in this State should have a reasonable fear always in the back of his mind that he or she could have problems stemming from an overzealous and tyrannical state, and as you point out we must know our rights and the law.  Even with that armor, there is still plenty of jeopardy, agendas, and little common sense.   The fudds need that fear.

The climate could change.  What if there is another mass shooting?  Additionally, if all these laws are passed and they aren't enforced then why are they being passed.  For example, if I am a contributor to society and in good standing and reasonably have to worry that I could be incarcerated for having GAMO pellet gun with a silencer  built into the barrel and a LEO sees it on my bench because I was cleaning it when I got some chest pains and called 911, but a thug that shoots someone in the head point blank at a "church" function doesn't even get charged for gun crimes as he plea bargains it down... What can I plea bargain down? that yes, your honor, I am guilty of having a cardboard box that the hollow points were in?

Are you trying to say that one doesn't cause attention to him or herself then all will be OK?     Are you saying that I would be OK with my non-compliant AR or m1 carbine if I accidentally took it to the range (by the way any ATF readers I don't own these)?   What if I lived in NJ and my landlord let the police in to check the border.   Are you saying that a cop would not go after me like what happened to Brian Aiken given that far-fetched scenario?   Oh, I get it, my chances of winning the lottery aren't that great, so I can go on living?

If some prominent 2nd Amendment individual is a capitalist so be it.  I didn't pay $10 a head, but I hope a few liberal democrat gun owners did.

THAT ATMOSPHERE is NOT UNREAL, but hopefully as you eloquently pointed out... that it is unlikely.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Additionally, those writing that are not writing it for a majority of us on gun forums and up on current 2nd Amendment concerns.  They were writing it for those dabblers and Fudds that don't feel there is anything to worry about as no one is coming for their shotguns.  Those gun owners need a little rattling.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/11/2019 at 12:33 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

Let's take that statistically rare case where a legal gun owner actually IS a threat... the police swoop in and take his guns away under a red flag law, sooo... now what? He can buy them illegally... make one.... buy a machete... rent a big, bone-crushing box truck... rig up some pipe bombs, etc. The gun was never the threat, but if the person was... well, now you've taken his property, humiliated him, saddled him with debt, and set him back out on the street...and now he's actually got a damned good reason to be angry and vengeful! How does this make any sense? I think these red flag laws are disastrous.

 

I agree this would be a problem.  Interesting point.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Interesting point.  

And the same applies to a person who others fear may self-harm. Great, you took guns away from a suicidal person… but now what? You send them home to a house full of: rope? knives? poison? pills? a car (carbon monoxide)? Sadly, people kill themselves using all types of tools. The focus needs to get off of the one particular tool... and on to whatever mental health crisis is purportedly taking place. But, that would suddenly bring up the ugly truth... that we as a country absolutely suck at dealing with mental illness. Well-intentioned, robust patient privacy laws sometimes prevent loving families from even knowing what's happening... and in those cases where they DO suspect trouble, there are unbelievable hurdles to getting someone admitted even for short-term hospital stays (because we have fewer psychiatric beds available today than in the 1950's). And THAT whole mental health quagmire is big... and messy... and expensive... and NO ONE wants to tackle it. It's so much easier to just grab a few guns... and strip a few people of their Constitutional rights, isn't it? :facepalm:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

@Underdog I think you have missed the point of my post several times over at this point.  Im glad you are passionate about our rights, we need more people who are.   Many of your questions that are on point with my original post are answered within the original post, should you choose to reread it.  

Share this comment


Link to comment

Calling out other 2A activists and lawyers does nothing to add to your credibility in my eyes.  We are supposed to be a united group.

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Tunaman said:

Calling out other 2A activists and lawyers does nothing to add to your credibility in my eyes.  We are supposed to be a united group.

Except that he didn't actually "call out" anyone in his blog post. We can agree to disagree though. :) 

Share this comment


Link to comment

@Tunaman you are right, my bad, I’ll stand by and let people in our community purposely spread misinformation and stoke fears, so we can be united.  Certainly better to just go with the flow than speak your mind.  

Do you think I did it for credibility, if so, you are sadly mistaken. 

Im still waiting to hear about multi year sentences, raids predicated on firearm ownership or anyone solely charged for a noncompliant magazine without other wrongdoing.  I’m the one with the credibility problem?  I don’t think so.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I dont know why you did it...but alot of people I know paid that 10 bucks a head to find out what they can and can not do. And they find that 10 bucks to be well spent.  Maybe it was to instill a little fear in people... so they get off of their butts and do something.  As far as the sky falling, I have been a gun owner since 1976,  and with what I see happening to our rights today  I believe we have a right to be fearful.  You are a lawyer.  Why dont you file some lawsuits on our behalf?   Maybe you can hold a few seminars for free and tell us what we need to know to say out of jail...

This is not a personal dig against you so dont think of it like that.  I just dont like when we eat our own.

Share this comment


Link to comment
8 hours ago, JasonSeidman said:

@Tunaman you are right, my bad, I’ll stand by and let people in our community purposely spread misinformation and stoke fears, so we can be united.  Certainly better to just go with the flow than speak your mind.  

Do you think I did it for credibility, if so, you are sadly mistaken. 

Im still waiting to hear about multi year sentences, raids predicated on firearm ownership or anyone solely charged for a noncompliant magazine without other wrongdoing.  I’m the one with the credibility problem?  I don’t think so.

I've been looking over my shoulder ever since i heard it was Kristallnacht all over again.

  • Haha 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hold on one minute here. The probable cause standard for search warrants has been diluted to the point of irrelevance in NJ. You are aware that NJ has two simple check the box forms for telephonic search warrants? Those for Domestic Violence and those for Vehicle Searches. I have never heard of a single request for either of those to have been rejected. They are cookie cutter format applications that are rubber stamped and approved. They result in searches, arrests, and confiscations on a daily basis in NJ. We have already slid down the slippery slope and red flag laws will only make it worse.

Share this comment


Link to comment

@Tunaman  the reason I did it was because I saw people who knew better, creating unrealistic and unnecessary hysteria on that particular topic.  Im not a fan of propaganda,  but ill leave you to decide if you can accept someone who knowingly misleads people  to "instill a little fear." If i see our own doing that, im not one to keep my mouth shut.   Ive offered advice and counsel to several people who have reached out to me through this site, and elsewhere, gratis, because i believe its right.  I never charge people to consult.  If you know someone with an issue that needs to be addressed or is of greater importance than just the one person, have them reach out.  

@remixer I forgot about that doozy!

@wreckless that could not be farther from the truth, at least related to search warrants.  The standard for a search warrant will always be probable cause.  That goes for telephonic warrants as well, which really since State v. Witt overruled Pena-Flores, have gone by the wayside.  They are done, but not with regularity like they were.  Also for Domestic violence, those are not search warrants in the traditional use of the term (at least according to our ridiculous legislature and court system), it is called a domestic violence search warrant and is limited in scope and even in ability to prosecute based upon what is found.  Im in no way advocating that I believe that they are constitutional, but until the correct test case comes around or the law is changed (and what politician would have the balls to say lets eliminate the ability to remove weapons for those accused of domestic violence), that is the law we have.   I dont know anything about you, but I'm not sure what volume of telephonic warrants and DV search warrants you are involved with to hear about them being rejected, or not - usually we (the public) never hear about a warrant that is rejected because nothing happens.  

Share this comment


Link to comment

I worked for a County Prosecutor's Office as an agent for five years after 26 years as a municipal police officer, Sergeant, and Lieutenant. As a result, I have reviewed many hundreds of cases. That is what I base my beliefs upon though I have been out of the loop for the past five years so that explains my ignorance of the change. Prior to Witt it was a free for all with those telephonic warrants. Glad to see that has stopped.  Thank you for the education counselor.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information