DonkeyPunch

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.

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

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...

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."

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.

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.

In what way is the law written that makes one guilty until proven innocent? Can you be specific?

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.

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.

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:

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.

I suddenly feel really old.

No, I'm not arguing semantics. Me stating that we have only heard some of one side of the case has nothing to do with semantics. Yet you said "He was pulled over solely because of the weapons." Could there be even more to why he was pulled over? Was he pulled over at all? Did the cops have some other reason for searching the car other than his mother being worried about suicide? Of course there can. I don't know, maybe not if he left them in his vehicle instead of moving them into the residence in a timely manner. Especially if the judge and jury didn't buy that he was in the process of moving at that exact time. When we don't have all the facts of the case and the claim is that someone went to jail "for 7 years for owning legal guns", yeah, it really is fear mongering.

Those aren't necessarily facts; they are claims. You're not going to get all facts, especially the ones that may be damning, from or about the website of the defendant and a letter from a lawyer with an interest solely for one side. I've read several things that suggest those claims aren't all true, one being that he wasn't pulled over solely because of weapons but because his mother was worried he may commit suicide. I also read he wasn't pulled over but already at his new residence with his handguns and ammunition still in his vehicle. I'm not saying he's not innocent; I'm saying we don't have all the facts of the case and the fear mongering claims about how law abiding gun owners in NJ can end up in jail "for owning legal guns" are at the least a little over the top.

I've read otherwise and it's going to hard to get to the truth without being privy to all the facts of the case. I've read other reports that state he was moving from CO to NJ and never resided with his parents. Again, the judge and jury didn't believe he was moving at that time. Is it 100% legal to have high cap magazines? So what if the judge has since been removed? It was for something unrelated to this case and he thinks he's innocent just as Brian Aitken claims he is. Did I say something outrageous or out of line? What?

There's no such charge and that's not what he's in jail for. From what I can gather using Google he was charged with: 2C:39-3f - possession of hollow-nose bullets 2C:39-3j - possession of a large-capacity magazine 2C:39-5b - possession of a handgun without a permit to carry It's hard to comment on this or any case without all the details, but it seems like he did break the above laws. Was he traveling from one residence to another while moving without stopping off somewhere else? Obviously not, because he had just left his parents' house where he did not live. The judge also didn't believe he was moving at all and apparently neither did the jury. I'm sure there's much more to this case other than "in jail in NJ for 7 years for owning legal guns".

I doubt any of the arrests were for not having a FOID. The man from Utah that Pizza Bob mentioned was arrested for possession of a handgun without a permit to carry and unlawful possession of hollow-point ammunition. http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=gdih&searchTerm=hZcO.fCja.ZCaW.GadX&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW I'm not sure why charges were dropped, but I'm not sure it's because he didn't violate any laws (charges are sometimes dropped for many more reasons other than no laws being violated). In the link I provided above, the Utah man (Revell) picked up his luggage in NJ and went to his hotel room with it. He also stated that he was transporting his gun and ammunition to PA so he could drive to Utah with it for protection. I'm no legal expert, but I'm not so sure he went about doing things to the letter of the law. The conclusion in the article I linked to says that "Section 926A does not apply to Revell because his firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to him during his stay in New Jersey."

For those of you that got yours laminated at a Kinkos, Staples, UPS store, etc. did the lamination add to the length and width to the card? If so, do any of you know of any places that can laminate without doing so?

Perfect, that's exactly the capacity of my mags. Thanks for the quick responses.

What's the allowable capacity for pistols?

I'll post the relevant part of my OP again: I was relatively certain there was nothing further I had to do. The police dept's website that I posted in the OP had me doubting myself. Your post mentioning pistol permits has me doubting myself even more.

PPs? Pistol Permits? I don't have a pistol permit. All I have is the weapon and receipt from the gun shop.