carguy3j

Agreed. Every situation is different. Some people who are technically "guilty" deserve no jail time, whereas others deserve much, much more. In theory, "we" trust judges to, well, judge things, and make a learned, objective decision, based on the particulars of a case. Obviously, that is often not the case these days, with judicial activism, and such heightened political sensitivities infecting and corrupting the entire legal system. What MANDATORY sentences really say is "we don't trust the system and those in it to do their jobs correctly". Perhaps that is what should be changed/fixed. Otherwise, we might as well just get rid of human judges, and install Judge-matic Punish-a-trons in every court house. On another note; while gun toting gang bangers are scum, prosecutors intentionally "targeting" them for a "fight for high bail" is unethical, or even unlawful. It seems it has become acceptable for bail to be used as sort of pre-trial, and pre-conviction, punishment. High profile case, or certain "targeted" crimes? Go for stupid high bail, that they know the defendant could never meet. Thereby effectively imposing a jail sentence on someone who is supposed to be legally treated as an innocent person, unless/until convicted. Bail is not to win brownie points with the public, or to make a political statement about being "tough on crime" The only legal purpose of bail is to ensure a defendant shows up for trial. So, $10 million bail, for a Corporate CEO charged with a fairly minor crime MIGHT be appropriate because, a.) they can reasonably come up with it and b.) its enough to ensure that they will want to come back to court and not forfeit it. On the other hand, $10k bail for a poor defendant, even if charged with a more serious crime, might be excessive. Sure, no one is shedding a tear for these gang bangers, but if the legal system is allowed to establish such mis-treatment as acceptable, it can just as easily be applied/directed towards anyone unfortunate enough to get caught up in it. Also, I noticed an interesting pattern in all the quotes from that prosecutor/officials. They kept emphasizing "GUN" violence, and the "GUNS", not the violence itself, or the underlying problem. "The goal is to stop criminals from carrying guns, so street confrontations do not escalate spontaneously into shootings, Hoffman said." Hmm. How 'bout just getting rid of the criminals to begin with, and eliminating the confrontations? I realize there is no "Moms w/o Brains, Who Demand Action Against Gang Bangers" with which to score "points" and votes, but still........ "Calling the city’s murder rate “catastrophic,” Hoffman announced initiatives that focused on deploying more law enforcement officers to combat shootings in the city’s most violent neighborhoods and simultaneously arresting and prosecuting gang members, repeat offenders and drug dealers who carry guns in public." So, I guess the gang members, repeat offenders, and drug dealers who either don't carry guns, or only use them indoors, are ok? Here's an idea.... Step 1.) Classify gangs, with a documented history of violence, as domestic terrorist organizations. Step 2.) Wear a gang "tat" or "throw" gang signs? Get charged as a member of a terrorist organization, and go to prison for a LONG time. Step 3.) Absolutely and utterly stamp out any gang activity in prisons. Normally, I'm not a fan of Zero Tolerance policies, but this would be an exception. Instead of keeping the various gangs in prisons separate, where they can consolidate their power, and freely associate with all their "people", break them up. Forcibly mix the various gangs/races/groups/whatever. If they end up killing each other over stupid stuff like the color of their skin, or toilet paper or something, oh well. Perhaps offer a way out, to a more "peaceful" prison unit, with a bit more privileges,etc, for those who a.) voluntarily have removed any gang related tattoos , b.) publicly renounce any gang affiliation, and c.) demonstrate through ongoing behavior, that they meant it, and will behave themselves. Perhaps tie further privileges to education,etc... Generally speaking, the more educated someone is the less likely they are to be a violent "thug". For those that really want a second chance, and an opportunity to "get out" and make themselves a better person, then give it to them. For those that want to continue to behave like animals, treat them as such. Step 4.) No one gets paroled while still having any gang tattoos. You agree to remove them, or you do your full sentence. I would like to say "forcible removal" or you never get out, but that would never fly, constitutionally.

Chapter 39. Firearms, Other Dangerous Weapons, and Instruments of Crime 2C:39-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter and to chapter 58: a. "Antique firearm" means any rifle or shotgun and "antique cannon" means a destructive device defined in paragraph (3) of subsection c. of this section, if the rifle, shotgun or destructive device, as the case may be, is incapable of being fired or discharged, or which does not fire fixed ammunition, regardless of date of manufacture, or was manufactured before 1898 for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available, and is possessed as a curiosity or ornament or for its historical significance or value. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the name of the maker, model designation, manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing identification mark or number on any firearm.

Is that actually allowed? If not, perhaps he should be reported. Nothing like ruining a piece of crap's day year in jail, by cutting off his FB access.

Fo' shizzle my nizzle. You, homes, check it: Worrrrrdddd! Thug ! Life Yyyeeeeaaaahzzzzz Yo, yo, yo, King Obaamo Cheerios be givins uz freez sh*t. Donts be hatin'n on a dog an his crew, my ***** (Yeah- I'm not even typing that!) . Uze be noin' wez only reedin at a kindargartin levell. We be neetin' piktorez or sump-in on demz' votey box masheenz. Gotz to keyp hatin' on dem' dumazz crakkerz an keep old witee outz da' ofiss. Yo. Pazzz a brotha a a "9". Iz gotz to cap a azz. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honestly, I have no idea what I just said; I don't speak "stupid". If I inadvertently requested a sexual favor or something, I assure you it was unintentional.

"So say we all!" - a little "cracker" sci-fi BSG reference there.

I don't know. That's why I asked. But, my gut says yes. I mean, legally, from what I understand, you can walk down the street with an UNLOADED long gun slung over your shoulder, as long as you have an FPID. So, cased/locked on a bus doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. This could be a case of the blind leading the blind though, so wait for someone who KNOWS to chime in here, but I also wouldn't just assume you can't and give up.

I'm assuming you were kind of joking, but seriously, why not? As long as you have an FPID, its a long gun, and its all cased/locked up, why couldn't you? Sure you might get some funny looks from the bus driver, but is it actually illegal? Does NJ transit have a written official policy against it? Can they even legally do so?

I got a great deal on a roll of paper towels... $.99, and I get to throw away whatever I was cleaning up, instead of putting it in my washing machine.... mmmmm, Quibids.... Scam-tastically, scam-a-ilicious

Ok, maybe. Depending on what was in the letter. Keep in mind, weird/odd/anti-social,etc... do not automatically equal threat to society/ justification for putting the guy through all this. As much as my curiosity is peaked, to ask or hope for the release of this letter would be a bit hypocritical on my part, unless the man himself chose to do so. We'll probably never have the full story here. Will they???? That's the $64K question. See my prior comments on asset seizure/forfeiture. This is something we really need to follow up on when ever this is resolved. Without seeing the letter, or knowing the man, I will give them the benefit of the doubt up to this point. And this is when the officers/chief involved are supposed to "man up" and tell the mayor "NO" "Sorry sir/maam, but we answer to the people, and it would be inappropriate, unethical, unprofessional, and quite possibly illegal. These pieces of potential evidence are being logged and locked up in the evidence locker. If you or your people attempt to access them, or allow reporters in to view or photograph them, then its silver bracelets for all (including said mayor) for evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. Further, given the mental health implications of this matter, if you divulge any potentially sensitive medical details to the press, we will refer the matter to the appropriate authorities, regarding HIPPA violations" Maybe, but if it turns out they over-reacted, and ruined this guys life, it will act as a deterrent to any future individuals seeking help. Even if they were completely justified in the confiscation, and bringing him to the hospital, the act of publicly "outing" him, via the press conference and public display of his guns, is, in itself, a deterrent. While I am all for transparency in law enforcement, why exactly did the world need to know about this?- especially before it has even been determined if he was actually a threat?

I mean, I guess you're right, but on the other hand, 20 pages of scribbled tightly packed rambling is different then 20 pages, neatly type, double spaced, with a lot of relevant details, as well as legal citation/references,etc... I mean, I was robbed (burgled? - stuff taken from garage while I wasn't home) a couple years back, and I EASILY got to 3 pages on my statement; between my "account" of what happened, and detailing what was missing, what it was worth, and how to identify. This wasn't a ton of stuff, no legal citation (which get pretty "long-winded" fast- see your own FAQ),etc... And, I felt like I could have said much, much more, but my hand was getting tired. "Take the guns... Evaluate... And if not a threat return immediately..." Sounds ok, in theory. However, we both know its very unlikely he'll ever see any of that stuff again, even if turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong. This would be a whole 'nother conversation, but just look into how screwed up/corrupt the whole civil forfeiture/seizure process is. In many states, there is no law requiring they return your stuff, even if you are found to have done nothing wrong. In others, technically, there is a process to recover your belongings, but it is so convoluted, time consuming, and costly, with minimal chance of success, that most people can't afford to even try. And, sadly, that's the point. Agencies, at every level of government, are building their budgets around asset seizures, and other questionable means of raising "revenue". Its theft on a massive scale, undertaken under the color of law. Not just NJ..... True, but its an uphill battle. In the meantime, it IS much more difficult to confiscate what they can't find. True, Counter-Intelligence is valuable..... Can't hurt to know what we are up against. Isn't it sad that WE, the people, have to have the least bit of concern about what might "trigger" THEM to turn against us? Why should we have to "walk on eggshells"? They should be concerned about how we will perceive them. They should be worried about losing their job if they mistreat, or are dis-respectful to US.

That. Or perhaps he/she would prefer to keep their private business private, at least from the people that they associate with most often, or perhaps to avoid family "drama",etc.... For instance, as a healthcare worker, I wouldn't want to seek treatment any place that I work, or might work in the near future. Preferably not for anything, but certainly not for anything potentially embarrassing. I recently needed a physical. For various reasons, I pretty much had to get it done at clinic I was going to work at that day, and for the rest of the week. I felt uncomfortable having to work with / face the same Dr. who had just done the 'ole hernia test on me. Yes, he was totally professional, but still, just kinda bugged me. I also don't like that several other co-workers now had access to my medical history, as part of the care they provided. Again, nobody did anything wrong, or unprofessional. It just kinda skeeved me out a bit. Perhaps some might feel the same about people they see everyday knowing they have a gun, or guns. Kinda boils down to the old adage of "Don't sh*t where you eat" Wouldn't it be a good thing if they DIDN'T drink? I mean, isn't the whole point of alcohol, is that it CHANGES your personality, at least temporarily? I don't know. I don't drink. I don't like the taste of alcohol, nor I do I see the appeal of the intoxicating effects....... Just saying, kinda seems like a counter-productive "litmus test".

I don't think the average locksmith has the tools or training to pick really high end safes. Sure, a Walmart special, yeah sure. But for anything real quality, I think some "destructive" methods would probably be needed,without the key. Who knows? Yes, they do have ways of looking inside walls. You or I do too. We can go to home depot and buy an inspection camera for about $100 and up. "They" also have more sophisticated sonar/radar based non-destructive imaging equipment; as well as infrared stuff. However, a.) I doubt most SMALL town depts have it, and b.) they aren't going to go through all that trouble routinely; especially if they think they already got everything and there is nothing to tell them otherwise. Now, again, handguns, they WILL KNOW what you are supposed to have, and if they don't find it, they'll keep digging. Similarly, if someone close to you were to rat you out, and tell them exactly how many guns you have, or clear descriptions of specific guns ("Yes, officer, my crazy gun nut @ssh@le neighbor has an evil black rifle with his name and flaming neon red dragon on it. You can't miss it. Please take that dangerous thing away from him"), then they better find those guns. But, guy has "some guns" - cops find "some guns" and no sign/indications of any more= search over " We got all of his guns", never mind that they could be standing on top of arsenal big enough for a small country and never know it. - Assuming they aren't already digging up your floorboards anyway, to investigate that awful stink and the strange ooze. In that case, you're screwed, as you should be.....

I'm guessing that the warrant "allows" them to break into it..... Probably like passwords/encryption. They can't make you give up the key, but they can then do whatever they want to try and get in themselves As for the hidden closet, if its truly hidden, well... They can't find / break into what they can't see.... Of course, if you have handguns hidden in there, they will know that something is missing, and they'll look REAL hard (Like, maybe sledgehammer/crowbar hard) to find it/them. I would think that as long as you only hide long guns/ammo, and don't get careless with leaving receipts or other documentation anywhere it might be discovered, then they'll never know they exist, let alone that they are right under their noses. Its not like they're bringing in ground penetrating radar or something. You would probably just want to put them in there, and leave them, for an emergency. Repeated access to the hidden area will leave clues, like wear marks, disturbed dust, etc... (Yeah, I guess I watch a lot of TV, but its still true) Maybe have a few "regular" ones out and accessible, as "sacrificial lambs", so they think they got something. Ie, if they KNOW you have guns, then they need to find something. If you're thinking about a SHFT/confiscation scenario, it might make sense to bury (well sealed/protected) some undocumented long guns/ammo, in a very inconspicuous place. Someplace even you couldn't/wouldn't try to access under normal circumstances, but where they could be gotten in an emergency. (Like maybe under a small outbuilding/shed,etc..) I was going to say under a pool, but in a SHTF scenario, you wouldn't want to sacrifice the stored water, or the continuing storage/collection value of the pool, just to dig up the guns.

This^^^^ Where does the second amendment list a "minimum friend requirement"? In fact, one could argue that the first, via "freedom of association" (or the freedom to not associate) would be guarantee that no such requirement could be made.

Well, you would have to KNOW there was a problem, and try to conceal it, in order to be falsifying anything. I don't see any way you would have any legal liability, as long as you were not aware of any "issues" For example: If you were friends with Ted Bundy, in 1973, and vouched for him, I think you're in the clear. By all accounts, at that time, he was a fine upstanding citizen. On the other hand, if he had confided in you that he killed someone, even though he hasn't been caught, and you vouched for him, in say late 1975... Then you got some 'splaining to do.... http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/tedbundy.htm I would say it is about plausible deniability. You aren't responsible for what you don't know.

I wish all road construction would be done at night, for exactly this reason. Its better to keep a few hundred people up at night, then inflict massive traffic delays on, perhaps, tens of thousands of drivers. Not to mention, the economic and environmental impact that results from the infamous NJ traffic. It would be so easy to fix with just a few policy/legal/enforcement changes. Yet, it will be a cold day in hell before they do anything other then just add more lanes.

What is the legal difference, if any, between a shotgun with a pistol grip, and a rifle that is chambered to fire shotgun shells?

That seems rather cruel and unnecessary................... to the monkey, dog, snake, and chicken.

Not if the bag guys had guns.... That would just convince the "moms" that guns are still the problem. Now, if they were mugged at KNIFE point, maybe that would change a few minds..... Unfortunately, it would still be relying on their irrational fear/emotions instead of logic.

Honestly, I'm a noob. I have never touched an AR, or even seen one in person. The last time I fired a gun was probably around 10 years ago. (12ga, .410 shotguns and a .30-.30, all belonging to friends, and various rented pistols, at the Sunset range in PA). The prospect of inheriting my grandfathers old Enfield rifle, coupled with a lack of employment to otherwise occupy my time, has sparked an increased interest over the last couple months. I've been spending WAY too much time on the internet reading various gun related stuff. Unfortunately, I don't see having the financial means to participate any time soon. :-( Hell, I can't even spare the funds to get an FPID right now. All the talk of "hunk of aluminum" had me thinking it needed MUCH more work to make functional then just a few holes drilled. As far being undocumented, wouldn't a private person-to-person deal, at least on a long gun, be the same? Particularly if you bought it out of state, privately, in a state that doesn't require documentation of the those sales? As far as the manufacturing, I thought it would be much more complicated than that. It sounds like as long as you live/have a shop in a more rural/gun friendly area, it wouldn't be too hard.... Again, I'm broke right now, nor do I have nearly enough knowledge to go making guns just yet; but I have come up with some really interesting ideas I'd like to explore someday. Some, would be fairly "normal", and I think would be commercially successful. Some, are "creative" ways around various bans/regulations- particularly one which I think would allow the semi-auto guys to keep their threaded barrels w/o pinning/welding OR allow the retention of a collapsible stock. Basically, getting you one more "evil" feature. I think it would be semi - border line, but it appears it would meet the letter of the law.Also something that could make a ton of money in NJ (and maybe CA/NY) Other ideas would be just plain crazy - but legal...... (.50BMG Gatling gun anyone???)

Also, just wondering. How hard is it to become a manufacturer, legally, in NJ? Not full scale commercial production, but say someone who wanted to be able to "tinker" and make there own prototypes,etc...

Just curious.. What would the purpose/advantage be in starting with that 80% chunk of aluminum anyway? Precision machine work, of any kind, is pricey. From a quick google search, the price of so-called "stripped" receivers/lowers are low enough that machining costs would far out way any cost savings from starting with a "blank" . Are there things you could machine into an 80% yourself, that isn't commonly available commercially, Or is it just one of those "I want to do it myself, just because I can" kind of things? I do see the advantages to people buying stamped "kits" that they can fold/bolt together themselves. I guess that applies more to the AK type rifles. There, I see the benefit of being able to buy the parts, for several firearms, without legally buying/documenting ownership of an actual gun. Then, in the event of a SHTF situation, where laws no longer matter, being able to put together a "ghost" gun. I see that being able to be done cheaply, in a garage (folding/riveting,etc..) VS CNC machining for this 80% AR lower.

Hey, here's an angle that hasn't been mentioned..... Husband and wife, right? They are married. Assuming that the gun is/was purchased after the marriage, and with joint funds, they BOTH jointly own the gun, just as any other marital property. There is no transfer of ownership, as they both automatically, as an operation of established property law, already jointly own it anyway. If they were to get divorced, then certainly the value of the guns would be factored into any equitable settlement, even if the husband is the only one who has an FPID, and the wife could not then simply assume sole ownership/possession. I'm sure the value would be "deducted" from what he otherwise gets, implying that the wife has a legally recognized/established ownership interest in the firearms to begin with....... Just thinking here. Any lawyers care to comment?

No, Hostess was "messed up" by the Baker's Union (and by greedy management that bled the company dry first) . I guess, technically, you could call a strike a boycott by the workers, but not really..... The union went on strike, when they were told that doing so would cause the company to shut down and be liquidated. http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess-brands-and-twinkies/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/16/the-end-of-hostess/?iid=EL

Then they should be relieved of their badges AND GUNS. They took an oath to defend the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. No one asked (well, I guess you did..), or cares what they think. Its not their job to have an opinion on the validity of that which they swore to uphold; certainly not while in uniform or while acting in any official capacity. If they can't understand/respect the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, then they have no business hiding behind, claiming any air of authority derived from it, or being permitted to act in the name of the law. You should have told them you need the AR, for when he and his like minded jack booted thugs get too far out of line........ The look on their faces would have been priceless..... Personally, I think EVERY officer/agent of the law should have to pass classes on constitutional law, before being allowed to enforce anything. Further, they should be required to have detailed "sub-specialty" knowledge of the law, and various case laws/interpretations/etc... before being permitted to arrest anyone for an offense within that category. Ie, an officer must pass a test on traffic laws, before being allowed to engage in any traffic enforcement. If he sees something, he can stop someone, but can't issue any citations, or make any arrests (exigent circumstances/immediate danger excepted), until a "certified" traffic enforcement officer is on scene and approves of any desired actions. ONLY officers with verified/certified proven extensive knowledge on firearms laws should be permitted to engage in any firearms related actions. Only "domestic violence" certified officers can go on those calls,etc..... Of course, again, legitimate emergencies requiring some degree of action to prevent immediate harm would be exempted, and "non-certified" officers could go as back up, but would be under the supervision of those certified. There should also be complete accountability for false/mistaken arrests. If an officer arrests someone for something he knew, or SHOULD have known was not a crime ( I think they SHOULD know every time. If they are not sure, check with the prosecutor/DA FIRST), there should be real consequences for that officer. The whole, "lock 'em up and let the judge sort it out" attitude should be stopped right in its tracks. The only way that will happen is personal officer accountability. After watching a few co-workers get charged/convicted/fired/sent to jail for a "false arrest" / "unlawful detainment" type charges, they'll think twice about it.