Belmopan Gringo

I did, but apparently I didn't read it closely enough. My apologies for adding to the confusion.

This is precisely what I am referring to. You are quoting from the New Jersey State Police website. Unfortunately that website has it wrong. You have to look at the actual statute, not the State Police's interpretation of the statute. First, it is allegedly quoting from N.J.S.A.26:39-3f.(1). In fact, there is no statute by that number. The actual staute is N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f.(1). If you look at N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f.(1), there is no excpetion for "persons engaged in activities pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f. . . ." Here is the entire language of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f.(1). The exception that the State Police says is there is simply not there: 2C:39-3 Prohibited Weapons and Devices. a.Destructive devices. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any destructive device is guilty of a crime of the third degree. b.Sawed-off shotguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any sawed-off shotgun is guilty of a crime of the third degree. c.Silencers. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. d.Defaced firearms. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm which has been defaced, except an antique firearm or an antique handgun, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. e.Certain weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, metal knuckle, sandclub, slingshot, cestus or similar leather band studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood, ballistic knife, without any explainable lawful purpose, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. f.Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or (2) any person, other than a collector of firearms or ammunition as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) and has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who knowingly has in his possession any body armor breaching or penetrating ammunition, which means: (a) ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun, and (b) which is comprised of a bullet whose core or jacket, if the jacket is thicker than.025 of an inch, is made of tungsten carbide, or hard bronze, or other material which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale, and © is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. For purposes of this section, a collector may possess not more than three examples of each distinctive variation of the ammunition described above. A distinctive variation includes a different head stamp, composition, design, or color. g.Exceptions. (1) Nothing in subsection a., b., c., d., e., f., j. or k. of this section shall apply to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or except as otherwise provided, to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty, provided that his possession of the prohibited weapon or device has been duly authorized under the applicable laws, regulations or military or law enforcement orders. Nothing in subsection h. of this section shall apply to any law enforcement officer who is exempted from the provisions of that subsection by the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall apply to the possession of any weapon or device by a law enforcement officer who has confiscated, seized or otherwise taken possession of said weapon or device as evidence of the commission of a crime or because he believed it to be possessed illegally by the person from whom it was taken, provided that said law enforcement officer promptly notifies his superiors of his possession of such prohibited weapon or device. (2) a. 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, nor shall subsection f. (1) be construed to prevent any licensed retail or wholesale firearms dealer from possessing such ammunition at its licensed premises, provided that the seller of any such ammunition shall maintain a record of the name, age and place of residence of any purchaser who is not a licensed dealer, together with the date of sale and quantity of ammunition sold. b.Nothing in subsection f.(1) shall be construed to prevent a designated employee or designated licensed agent for a nuclear power plant under the license of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from possessing hollow nose ammunition while in the actual performance of his official duties, if the federal licensee certifies that the designated employee or designated licensed agent is assigned to perform site protection, guard, armed response or armed escort duties and is appropriately trained and qualified, as prescribed by federal regulation, to perform those duties. (3)Nothing in paragraph (2) of subsection f. or in subsection j. shall be construed to prevent any licensed retail or wholesale firearms dealer from possessing that ammunition or large capacity ammunition magazine at its licensed premises for sale or disposition to another licensed dealer, the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or to a law enforcement agency, provided that the seller maintains a record of any sale or disposition to a law enforcement agency. The record shall include the name of the purchasing agency, together with written authorization of the chief of police or highest ranking official of the agency, the name and rank of the purchasing law enforcement officer, if applicable, and the date, time and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise disposed. A copy of this record shall be forwarded by the seller to the Superintendent of the Division of State Police within 48 hours of the sale or disposition. (4)Nothing in subsection a. of this section shall be construed to apply to antique cannons as exempted in subsection d. of N.J.S.2C:39-6. (5)Nothing in subsection c. of this section shall be construed to apply to any person who is specifically identified in a special deer management permit issued by the Division of Fish and Wildlife to utilize a firearm silencer as part of an alternative deer control method implemented in accordance with a special deer management permit issued pursuant to section 4 of P.L.2000, c.46 (C.23:4-42.6), while the person is in the actual performance of the permitted alternative deer control method and while going to and from the place where the permitted alternative deer control method is being utilized. This exception shall not, however, otherwise apply to any person to authorize the purchase or possession of a firearm silencer. h.Stun guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any stun gun is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. i.Nothing in subsection e. of this section shall be construed to prevent any guard in the employ of a private security company, who is licensed to carry a firearm, from the possession of a nightstick when in the actual performance of his official duties, provided that he has satisfactorily completed a training course approved by the Police Training Commission in the use of a nightstick. j.Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree unless the person has registered an assault firearm pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12) and the magazine is maintained and used in connection with participation in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army. k.Handcuffs. Any person who knowingly has in his possession handcuffs as defined in P.L.1991, c.437 (C.2C:39-9.2), under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as handcuffs may have, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense. A law enforcement officer shall confiscate handcuffs possessed in violation of the law.

I was replying to vlattepes who said in post 22: "I would have to dig and dig.. and dig.. but if I recall correctly.. and I could be wrong.. I am pretty sure he was NOT traveling from a legal exempted place of use or possession, to or from his home.." Sorry about any confusion.

Please allow me to clarify a misunderstanding that I have seen several times today. You are not allowed to carry hollow point ammunition to the shooting range under the Aitken opinion. Under this opinion, hollow point ammunition is prohibited under 2C:39-3, but there is a exception under that section (Section -3) for “keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land.” A different section (Section -5) prohibits the possession of a handgun without a carry permit, but yet another section (Section -6) provides an exception to Section -5 and states that “nothing in subsections b., c., and d. of NJS 2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent.. a person transporting any firearm or knife while traveling.. .directly to or from any target range[.]” In other words, the “shooting range” exception for weapon possession does not apply to weapons identified in section -3, only section -5. Since hollow points are banned by section -3, the shooting range exception does not apply to them. Therefore, under section -3, you can have hollow points in your home, and you can bring them to your home after to legally purchase them. Once they are there, however, they cannot be taken to the shooting range, at least a shooting range in New Jersey. There may be an exception if you are taking them from your home to a location out of state since that would be governed by federal, not state law. P.S. I am aware of the State Police website entry that says you can transport hollow tip ammunition to the range. http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html In my opinion, this site is wrong in light of the language of the Aitken opinion, which specifically found that the exceptions under section -6 do not apply to section -3. Aitken might have a good argument on appeal that even the State police believe that the exceptions of -6 apply to hollow point bullets.

Sorry about that. I just saw the decision on the New Jersey Daily Decision Alert, did a summary on Word, and cut and pasted the summary on the Forums without looking to see if anyone had posted earlier. I should have searched before I posted. My bad.

Hey Vlad You're right that he violated the law by having the hollow points in his vehicle under circumstances that did not fit into any exceptiion. You posted earlier your belief that he was not transporting the guns from one residence to another, but the Court found that since he had at least two places he was living, he might be able to argue that he was. He could still hypothetically be re-tried on the gun possession charge, but because his sentence was commuted, he could not do any time on this charge, even if he was convicted in a second trial. He cannot be re-tried on the possession of the magazines, because a retrial on that count would be barred by the double jeopardy clause. He also can attempt to appeal the conviction on the hollow point possesion charges to the Supreme Court.

A very interesting unpublished decision was announced by the New Jersey Appellate Division on March 30th on the issue of transportation of guns and ammunition within New Jersey In State of New Jersey v. Aitken (A-0467-10T4)(March 30, 2012), the defendant had been convicted of the illegal possession of three unlicensed pistols, possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine, and possession of hollow point bullets. The decision can be found at http://www.judiciary...ns/a0467-10.pdf. In this opinion, the Appellate Court reversed the convictions on the gun and magazine possession charges but affirmed the conviction for possession of hollow point bullets. The decision is 41 pages long, so I can’t repeat all the details, but the short summary is that the defendant legally purchased 3 handguns, two large capacity magazines (16 rounds per magazine) and hollow point bullets in Colorado where he lived at the time. He moved back to New Jersey with his former wife and their child, but when things went sour with her, he began splitting his time between a friend’s home in Hoboken, his parent’s home in Mount Laurel, and his old place in Colorado Whenever he would go from place to place, he would take his possessions with him, including his guns, ammo and magazines. Defendant did not have a license to carry. At some point, the defendant left his mother’s house after an apparent argument with his ex-wife. Believing he might be suicidal, defendant’s mother called 9-1-1. The investigating officer procured defendant’s cell phone number and called the defendant, convincing him to return to Mount Laurel. When he did, the car was searched with the defendant’s consent, and the guns, magazines and ammunition were found in a shoebox in his trunk. Defendant was indicted, tried and convicted. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the search was justified and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. The Appellate Division also found, however, that the trial Court had erred by refusing to instruct the jury that there was an exception in the law for transporting unlicensed weapons from one residence to another. Since the had a temporary residence in Hoboken and another temporary residence in Mount Laurel, the defendant might have been able to argue that his possession of the weapons under the circumstances was not illegal. As for the large capacity magazines, the Appellate Court found that the arresting officer was not an expert, and was unable to testify that the magazines were capable of feeding ammunition “continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.” In the absence of this proof, the State failed to prove all of the elements of an offense. Finally, as to the hollow point ammunition, the Appellate Division found that the exception that allowed the defendant to transport his guns from one residence to another did not apply to hollow core bullets. There is an exception under NJSA 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) which allows someone to possess hollow core ammunition at his home, and to carry such ammunition to his home from the place he legally purchased it, but it does not allow someone to move it from one home to another.

The definition of a weapon, under 2C (specifically NJSA 2C:39-1®) is: "Weapon" means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all (1)firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip or other component to render them immediately operable; (2)components which can be readily assembled into a weapon; (3)gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives, billies, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sandclubs, slingshots, cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood; and (4) stun guns; and any weapon or other device which projects, releases, or emits tear gas or any other substance intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air." I have heard people offer the opinion that a loaded magaizine might be considered a weapon, but I don't see it under New Jersey law.

I happen to be a lawyer, and in my opinion, you are correct with one other thing to take into consideration- the rules of the state and city you are entering. BTW, you may not be an attorney, but your analysis is usually spot on.

To expand on a previous post on the seizure and return of 1) a weapon used in self defense, and 2) other weapons in the home. As mentioned earlier, if you invite the police into your house after the shooting, or the police have a reasonable belief that they need to enter in order to protect against imminent harm, they can seize any evidence that is in plain view. Presumably that would include the weapon discharged in self defense. They do not have a generalized right to search the house because it is a potential “crime scene.” There are exceptions, such as the “Rescue Doctrine” and the “Public Safety Exception” that could hypothetically give the officers the right to search other parts of the house without a warrant (see State v. Stephenson, 350 N.J. Super. 517 (App. Div. 2002)), but these probably wouldn’t apply here. Thus, the police would have no right to look for or take other weapons without your permission. Assuming, however, that they took possession of the gun which was fired as well as other firearms in the house, the following statutes and interpretive cases would apply. If the guns seized are potential evidence of a crime, they can be held until the investigation and prosecution (if any) are completed. See Forfeiture Statute (NJSA 2C:64-1 et seq.) in general and 2C:64-4 in particular which states: “Seized Property: Evidentiary Uses. A. Nothing in this chapter shall impair the right of the State to retain evidence pending a criminal prosecution.” See also State v. Cataldo, 294 N.J. Super. 527 (Law Division): “A motion for the return of non-contraband property seized as evidence is premature while criminal prosecution is still pending.” If, at the conclusion of the investigation, it is determined that there was no crime, all the weapons must be returned if they were legally owned before the shooting. See NJSA 2C:64-1: “Property Subject to Forfeiture. a. Any interest in the following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them: (1) * * * firearms that are unlawfully possessed, carried, acquired or used[.]” See also Dragutsky v. State, 262 N.J. Super. 257 (App. Div. 1993): “When property seized is not prima facie contraband, forfeiture measures must be enforced by a civil action instituted within 90 days.” Reading all of these statutes and cases together, the most likely scenario would be that the State would take possession of the gun that was used in the shooting and hold onto it until they determined that it was not evidence of a crime. It would then be returned. Considering, however, how long some investigations take, it could literally be years before you get it back. If they ask you if you have other guns (which they probably would), you would face a dilemma. You can’t lie to them without obstructing justice. If you told them yes, they would probably ask you to turn them over. You could politely decline to answer any questions without consulting your attorney, but that makes it look like you are tying to hide something. Most people would say yes and the other guns would probably be confiscated. Assuming that it is obvious that the other guns had nothing to do with the shooting (for example, the perp was shot with a pistol and the other guns are shotguns), the State might voluntarily release them back to you, or you could file a motion with the Court to have them returned. If there is any possibility that they may be evidential, however, you won’t get them back until the investigation is over and you are exonerated. The moral of the story? If you shoot someone, you will lose the weapon you used for a long time, and may lose the rest for quite some time as well.

So, you are advocating making a false representation to a law enforcement authority by knowingly misrepresenting that a different gun was used in the shooting? Assuming they figure out that the gun you used was not the gun you gave them, both guns become evidence of the crime of tampering or fabricating physical evidence (2C:28-6) and when you are convicted, both guns get forfeited under 2C:64-1(2) as property used in an illegal activity. I know that you're joking, but if any other Forum member sees your post and thinks, "Hey, that's a good idea!" ....it may not be the best one I have heard.

Assuming the police were legally present becaue you invited them in, or because they forced their way in believing that a violent crime was in progress, the police can seize any evidence in plain view which suggests that a crime was committed. This would presumably include the weapon used in the shooting. There is, however, no "homicide investigation" exception to the Fourth Amendment, so unless you voluntarily give them other guns you have, they can't just search and seize them. See Flippo v. West VIrginia: A warrantless search by the police is invalid unless it falls within one of the narrow and well-delineated excep- tions to the warrant requirement, Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967), none of which the trial court invoked here.#2 It simply found that after the homicide crime scene was secured for investigation, a search of "anything and everything found within the crime scene area" was "within the law." App. A to Pet. for Cert., at 3. This position squarely conflicts with Mincey v. Arizona, supra, where we rejected the contention that there is a "murder scene exception" to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. We noted that police may make warrantless entries onto premises if they reasonably believe a person is in need of immediate aid and may make prompt warrantless searches of a homicide scene for possible other victims or a killer on the premises, id., at 392, but we rejected any general "murder scene exception" as "inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend- ments- . . . the warrantless search of Mincey's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there." Id., at 395; see also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U. S. 17, 21 (1984) (per curiam). Mincey controls here. The police would take possession of the weapon they believe was used in the shooting and any other evidence they validly seize, discuss it with the prosecutor and only release it if they conclude that no crime was committed. They can hold it forever if they believe that it might be evidence of a murder (since there is no statute of limitations for murder). If they wanted to take other weapons that you legally possess, they would have to get a warrant.

If you're speaking philosophically, I don't disagree with you- government has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives, and its not for the better. If you are speaking legally, however, the law (in New Jersey, at least) makes a strong distinction between using deadly force when it is necessary for the protection of humans versus the protection of property. If you can demonstrate that you used deadly force because it was immediately necessary for the protection of yourself and/or others, it will ultimately be deemed to be aceptable.Conversely, if the use of deadly force can be safely avoided, it's use will be deemed improper. Its the grey areas in between that cause problems for the law, and the law basically gives you "the rub of the green" if the encounter is in your house. I can't say that I disagree with that approach. Speaking hypothetically, If you, your family, a friend or even a stranger is in imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, you will do whatever needs to be done to protect yourself or them, and the law will give you a pass. If, however, you want to burst into a building (including your own house), with guns blazing, because some teenager might be stealing a stereo, your behavior would be unacceptable since it puts not only you, but potentially other innocent persons at risk.

Once again, we agree. The person violating the law by leaving his property while in possession of a weapon did so in order to fulfill his obligation to retreat under NJSA 2C: 3-4. He is therefore entitled to raise the defense of "justification" which states, under NJSA 2C: 3-2, that "Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity..." PeteF, I agree that we live in a f**ked up state, but you don't have to worry about being prosecuted under the circumstances you describe.

We agree.I was going to cite State v. Martinez (229 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 1989)) but didn't know if it was still good law and didn't have enough time to Sheppardize it.