Jump to content

DonkeyPunch

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

DonkeyPunch last won the day on November 11 2010

DonkeyPunch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

1 Follower

About DonkeyPunch

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, you've repeated that several times. I'm not going to play a game of "whomever says it last wins." Reading comprehension? I posted the same thing THREE TIMES regarding licenses/permits.
  2. I've read it. Yes, when it comes to licenses and permits, you must show when asked. Again, I stated that early on: "If one has to show a license or permit, then one must do so as agreed when they applied. The same for drivers licences and this applies in every state." That is not evidence that one is guilty until proven innocent.
  3. I would answer "I have nothing to say"- repeatedly. What exemption? That he is headed to the firing range? Nope. You're wrong. The prosecution must prove that you weren't on your way to the firing range.
  4. Not disprove, prove. The prosecutor has to prove that the defendant wasn't under an exemption. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.
  5. ^ I assume you're under the impression that because the law states "is guilty of...", that means one is guilty until proven innocent, correct? If so, you are mistaken. It would be no different than if the wording were "it is prohibited..." or any other language. "It is prohibited..." means there is a law saying you can't [fill in the blank] and if a jury finds you did said thing, you are guilty. You are still innocent until proven guilty. Every court in every state is set up this way. There are zero exceptions.
  6. Nah. The current Constitution was issued in 1947 and has been amended several times. It mentions lots of rights from the US Constitution, e.g., voting, right to assemble, freedom of speech, a speedy trial...
  7. As I stated earlier: "If one has to show a license or permit, then one must do so as agreed when they applied. The same for drivers licences and this applies in every state."
  8. Oh boy. Things are much simpler where I'm from, but you don't know where I'm from? Interesting. Joisey? That's not how we talk here. I owe him an apology? I haven't been shown I was wrong, but even if I were, that's a childish statement. People don't owe others any apology for being wrong in a forum when arguing in good faith. I don't care if you consider yourself an authority. You haven't shown that I am wrong and are relying on "I know more than you" type statements for me to believe otherwise. Ain't gonna happen. No, the judge was not "disbarred", Mr. Expert. You might want to brush up on big legal words. But if he was, do you not realize you're strengthening my point that NJ laws aren't written so one is guilty until proven innocent? You should also learn what communism is.
  9. False. It is up to the police officer to have probable cause for an arrest and the courts to go ahead and prosecute you and a jury to find that the prosecution has met its burden of proof that you are guilty. If one has to show a license or permit, then one must do so as agreed when they applied. The same for drivers licences and this applies in every state. I haven't been shown that NJ is any different than any other state in regard to being innocent until proven guilty. I asked for a specific law. The jury will be given a lesson on defendants being innocent until proven guilty before they are even picked for a case. The judge will instruct the jury that it is the prosecution's burden to prove the defendant guilty. Any halfway decent defense attorney will belabor that point.
  10. In what way is the law written that makes one guilty until proven innocent? Can you be specific?
  11. No, you are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution would have to make its case for guilt. Juries aren't instructed any differently in firearms cases. Slingshots are legal with "an explainable, lawful purpose." I don't know of anyone getting harassed for using slingshots for target practice in NJ.
  12. It seems the articles regarding this case are claiming that Twyne wasn't carrying hollow point ammo because an FAQ on the NJSP website claims they aren't and Nappen states the website says they're allowed along with stating "They're not hollow. They're filled." I can't find a NJ statute that backs that claim up. I'm curious if a judge won't give a damn what their website claims and go strictly by the letter of the law and believe that filling a hollow point does not stop it from being a hollow point. I know the DMV of CA disagrees with the CHP regarding the legality of lane splitting. Regardless of the authority of one making a claim, the law is the law. If the charges don't get dropped, I'm very curious of what decision a judge will make regarding the legality of filled hollow point ammo.
  13. In case some are confused what this discussion about an "add on charge" is regarding: It has been said over many years on this board and others that in NJ there is a law that stipulates that in circumstances when you are otherwise allowed to carry hollow points, if you are committing any crime while in possession of them, your possession of them becomes illegal and now you can be charged with possession of hollow point ammunition. Examples:
  14. Just reading this for the first time now. Awesome! Thanks for doing that. I'm sure plenty were believing what was on their website was true due to it being on the website of a police department.
×
×
  • Create New...