Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


leahcim last won the day on May 21 2021

leahcim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

671 Excellent

1 Follower

About leahcim

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Southern NJ
  • Home Range

Recent Profile Visitors

4,720 profile views
  1. I've almost always asked for ID when I forget my key and ask for a new one, maybe I come across as suspicious? Almost always there is a physical block on the door too-the thing you rotate 90 degrees and it blocks the door from opening? They can be defeated, but usually will create a ruckus and give some time and warning to respond.
  2. Come on man, it's common sense! Plus these AR-47 fully semi full auto can shoot a 5.56 caliber bullet like 5x faster than any other gun ever made. I was 30, she was 12, it was a beautiful thing. And they completely liquidate every organ of anyone they hit. Come on man, it's just common sense. You can't buy a cannon.
  3. I 100% agree. Just load the ammo in your vehicle and drive out of this state (maintaining speed limit) and shake the dust off your feet when you leave. Don't let your Mom call the police, don't agree to drive back and meet the police somewhere in NJ, do not consent to search-these are a few of Aitken's mistakes.
  4. Unfortunately, in NJ, you could do everything right, you could follow NJ law perfectly and clearly defending against deadly force. Still it is highly likely you will be indicted and charged and you will be judged by 12; hopefully acquitted. And you, the victim, will end up paying a boatload of money for the privilege. From the original story: "Even if you are rightly defending yourself or a family member or any other person, Reale says the climate in New Jersey will impact the decisions of investigators and law enforcement with regard to how they proceed, “and while in maybe 48 states, you wouldn't get indicted, in New Jersey, you run the serious risk of being charged. Even if common sense says it's a righteous shoot, it's likely you're going to have to go through a court of law.”
  5. And this was a big part of Aitken defense argument, that the law was overly vague. Unfortunately the appeal court did not agree.
  6. That count (HP) is literally the only charge that was not overturned on appeal: "and fourth-degree possession of prohibited ammunition (hollow nose bullets), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(1) (count three). We reverse the convictions on counts one and two, but affirm the conviction on count three." Case text-State v Aitken Their argument was: "APPELLANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY CONVICTED FROM POSSESSING HOLLOW NOSE AMMUNITION BECAUSE THE STATUTE BANNING SUCH AMMUNITION IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND THE STATE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE ITS CASE; FURTHER, THE APPELLANT'S POSSESSION OF SUCH AMMUNITION IS EXEMPTED. POINT 7: THE DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF HIS LAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY WAS PROTECTED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT." but they lost in NJ court and in appeal. HP are illegal in NJ, but there are exceptions/exemptions, "N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(l) specifically prohibits possession of "hollow nose or dum-dum bullet The court in Aitken specifically cites the difference in there transport law for weapons vs HP ammunition, and the fact that HP does not allow for transport between homes, as the law for weapon transport does: "Brian also argues that, using the rule of lenity, we should interpret N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) as including an exception for moving hollow nose bullets between residences, even though it is not included in the statutory language. .... N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in subsection [(f)](1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . ." In contrast to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e), which concerns exemptions with respect to the possession of weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not contain a specific exemption for possession while moving between residences. Citing the concept of lenity, Brian argues that we should read that exemption into the statute."
  7. Aitken did make mistakes, especially consenting to search, but does anyone seriously think this should have earned him three felonies? As for the OPs HPs, you can transport HPs from home to range and from range back home, right? Why not just drive from house A to the range (literally just pull into the parking lot) then drive from the range to house B?
  8. And prior to Aitken many of us would have believed that the moving exemption, which applies to many other gun transport laws, would also implicitly apply to HPs. Bad assumption and Brian Aitken found out the hard way. I believe HP was the only one that wasn't overturned on appeal. Makes you wonder what other interpretations have we made that would not stand up in court. Aitken wiki
  9. I only have seen them in AZ, I-8 coming out of Yuma. Yeah, I understand the reason-essential liberty for temporary safety. I'm sure most agents are putting they're lives on the line to protect our nation; And I think I'd support the CBP mission more if it weren't for the fact that the mission is undermined by almost every Democrat, including current POTUS, and failure to enforce existing laws and execute policy against illegals. As it is, those CBP checkpoints seem like they're basically for show. How many illegal entries have CBP really prevented?
  10. And at the present time, very high likelihood they'll figure it out, with all the technology at police disposal, and neighbors ring camera etc. And I'm pretty sure this kind of action would pretty much destroy any self defense claim you might have had. Don't mess with evidence, they will figure it out and jury will assume you're guilty.
  11. I don't disagree that these decisions exist, I do disagree with the decisions. But that's just my opinion. And I think these checks just waste everyone's time. BTW, The sobriety check points are unconstitutional in some states which have stronger constitutional protection of individual privacy and liberty, like my home state of Washington--as liberal as it is, still has a "State Constitution [that] also protects the privacy rights of individuals at home or in private affairs including in their vehicles" Washington sobriety stops "Fortunately for Washington residents, DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. In the 1988 case City of Seattle v. Mesiani, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that these roadblocks lack the particularized and individualized suspicion of criminal activity. This violates Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. As a result, police in Washington do not have the authority to establish DUI checkpoints."
  12. Agree, but 99% of my traffic stops have been because I committed infraction. Unavoidable stops have usually involved unconstitutional (IMO) sobriety checks or CBP checkpoints.
  13. I agree 100% I've watched a lot of these audit videos and the LEOs are almost always wrong-making bad assumptions, over stepping their authority, making up laws, etc. That's why this one is so exceptional. And yes, don't get stopped in the first place!
  14. I think this shows a pretty good interaction. Pulled over for expired registration. Things could have gone badly if the LEOs freaked out. But everyone stayed calm and polite, ended well.
  • Create New...