Trunk

This. I watched my fax go through on a Wednesday at 6pm, and had a call on Monday morning that it was approved.

I think you might have misunderstood her.

That is a good point to consider. Although I'm confident that I could convince a jury that the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault, it certainly wouldn't be fun. That is one area where I think NJ needs serious reform.

Yes.

I was responding to The Clerk. I follow the logic of your argument, but I really don't think any of that stuff would matter in the context of a legitimate use of self defense. I was responding to the weird justification that you received at the gun shop. The responding and investigating officers will certainly see and take note of everything at the scene of any homicide, including the gun and bullets. I just don't think the name of a bullet will matter in a legitimate use of self defense. The bottom line is guns and bullets can kill someone, regardless of what they are called. If someone really wanted to, he or she could come up with a reason why each brand of bullet demonstrates that you're an unreasonable, ruthless killer. It's just not something I'm ever going to worry about. I worry about quality and price. I obviously can't speak to the situation that you saw first hand, but every situation is different. If the prosecutor was looking to charge people, I suspect that he believed that the use of force was unlawful.

Assuming there would ever be a situation where the kind of bullet was mentioned by dispatch, do you really think it would make a difference in police response?

Packanack here. While I wouldn't consider myself an "Old Glock guy" or even an "olderguy"... you're a whipper snapper compared to me.

Welcome. Wayne here, as well.

Initially, I only saw four people who appeared in NJ on the Westchester County map. They are a north Jersey Deputy Fire Chief/general manager at a CT & NY lumber company, a NY & NJ podiatrist, a Port Authority Police Lieutenant and the president/owner of Kimber. Admittedly, I am not at all familiar with the details of NY carry permits. A cursory Google search shows forum results that make it sound like an impossibility for non-residents, but there are also some references to non-resident permit holders who work in NY. All of the people above meet that criteria. More people appear in NJ as you zoom in, so if you had the time, you could probably eventually find some exceptions to the NY scheme. I guess it would stand to reason that if you can find some examples of exceptions to NY rules, you could probably expect to see the same types of exceptions to NJ law if they were to release similar information. But hasn't it always been like that everywhere since the beginning of time? I'm wondering if the Deputy Fire Chief is on this forum, since he's clearly into carrying firearms. Maybe he could shed some light on the subject.

I was unable to find anything relating to discharge of firearms in the 2007 Lumberton codebook (the latest I could find). If the ordinance you are referencing is anything like other discharge ordinances, permission from neighbors is irrelevant. Assuming that permission could defeat the distance restrictions, in order for your "calculation" to work, you would also have to assume that plinking is hunting, which it is not.

If you print it out, as is, it won't look much different than the unsolicited 911 conspiracy flyer that I received via fax a couple years back. Maybe it's the formatting, but I found it extremely hard to read. Do yourself a favor and don't rush it. You're understandably emotional, but just take your time and clean it up. Add parts and subparts, if necessary. With that said, you're not going to change anyone's mind, even with the best legal analysis. If you're trying to make a statement to your representatives, make it concise. Explain what happened, why you think it happened, how it could have been different and the consequence if he/she does not take action.

The question, as I understood it, wasn't whether the magazines were illegal, but what effect, if any, the "LE/Govt" markings could have in the event that he was required to use them for self defense.

I would hope that your defense attorney would move to suppress the evidence as being highly prejudicial. I would, however, stay away from any magazines that say "Trigger Happy, Unreasonable Guy".

No argument from me, ianargent. I mentioned the innocent purchaser, because I believe there are many honest people out there who would 1) trust a manufacturer/dealer who represents that the magazines are, in fact, fifteen round magazines, and 2) would not even attempt to fit sixteen rounds for fear of breaking the law. That's the kind of person that deserves Brian Aitken's commutation and acquittal. To be clear, I'm not talking about due process. I think the Appellate Division's holding on the magazine charge is sound. Rather, I am simply talking about an overall just outcome. The above hypothetical person (akin to the negligence standard's "reasonable person", I would argue), if tried by the prosecution after the Aitken case, would surely be faced with an expert and ultimately be convicted.

Agreed. He's not really helping the cause, either, by knowingly breaking the law. He knew that they held more than fifteen rounds, because the two magazines were loaded with sixteen each. I would have preferred that this one-time defense was burnt on an innocent purchaser of 15/30 or 15/20 magazines, that just so happen to accommodate and feed sixteen rounds.

What kind of tack-on charge?

I'm reluctant to classify this as a pro-gun decision, just like I wouldn't call a reversal of a murder conviction a pro-murder decision. The state simply failed to meet it's burden. They will get an expert for the next case, and the defendant won't be so lucky.

That's correct.

On that point, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a challenge to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y), which was based on the premise that the number of rounds in a fixed magazine tube varied with the length of the shells. Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, Inc. v. Whitman. 44 F. Supp. 2d 666 - Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 1999. As I read it, the Court reasoned that statute encompassed the "standard shells intended for the magazine." The opinion still leaves the question of what a "standard" shotshell is within a given caliber or gauge. For 12 ga., I'd imagine it would be 2 3/4". Of course, with all of that said, the court's interpretation of the capacity of a fixed tube shotgun really doesn't help with the debate about the capacity of certain milti-caliber-capable magazines. For instance, what is "standard" when comparing .556 vs. .50? Which came first? Which sells better? Which has some kind of immeasurable "standard" firepower? Who knows? Interestingly, the Court also dealt with the issue of scienter and appears to suggest that the Pelliteri Court got it wrong: " In an August 19, 1996 directive issued to the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice, County Prosecutors, and all Law Enforcement Chief Executives, Attorney General Peter Verniero wrote that 'prosecutors and police should remember that an assault firearms offense requires proof that the defendant knows he or she possesses an assault firearm, e.g., that the defendant knows that the firearm is `substantially identical' to one of the named assault weapons.' (Defendants' Exh. B, p. 3). In sum, the Attorney General seemingly claims that an element of scienter is required although neither the statute nor the cases interpreting it seemingly require knowledge."Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, Inc., 44 Supp 2d. at 683. As I understand it, though, the Superior Court of New Jersey is still free to say "No, they got it right in Pelliteri" if you ever got hauled in for possession of a high capacity magazine that just so happened to be able to hold more than 15 rounds of some other caliber. So, we're not really any better off, but it suggests that the federal court may be a little more reasonable if the constitutional challenge was presented to them. I think that we can all agree that if you're caught with a magazine loaded with more than 15 rounds of anything, you're going to be in trouble. Likewise, we can speculate and agree about law enforcement's interpretation and priorities. But the fact still remains that the statute, as written, is very clear about what constitutes a high capacity magazine.

I don't think so. The election and operation of the county government are authorized and limited by state law. I am not sure how Illinois is organized, though. This is similar to what DevsAdvocate was saying. If you can get me names and/or counties, I will see what I can dig up.

I agree that counties cannot supplant state law. However, to be clear, trial level courts located in the various counties are state courts. They are just located in the various counties for administrative purposes. The judges and staff are state employees. To my knowledge, there are no county judges in New Jersey. With that said, any trial level decisions are certainly probative, even if they are not binding on the courts. One could determine the local prosecutors' and judges' proclivities and be guided accordingly. Chances are, if there is a record of it, you already know what the prosecutor's position was. Aside from searching for opinions on reporting services like Westlaw and Lexis, you will probably have to do some OPRA legwork.

That is incorrect. While the courts are typically entirely separate, there are certain instances where the United States Supreme Court is permitted to - and then also chooses to - review a judgment by a state's high court. Granting certiorari is more akin to an "appeal" than an entirely new case. Kpd was right that it may go federal. He just got the court wrong. Take, for instance, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,14 U.S. 304 (1816). In reviewing and reversing a ruling by Virginia's high court, the United States Supreme Court held that Article 3 grants it jurisdiction and authority over state courts for matters of constitutional interpretation. Martin, 14 U.S. at 352-354. Additionally, the Supreme Court's authority is codified as 28 U.S.C. §1257 State courts; certiorari: (a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term "highest court of a State" includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.