Jump to content
g17owner

CCW Restricted Places Exception

Recommended Posts

I was reading my town's firearm ordinances last night: https://ecode360.com/27509953

Section 165-3 Subsection B: No person shall carry a loaded firearm or weapon or drawn bow within 450 feet of any school property or public playing field.

I imagine many towns have similar laws and this is not unique to Mendham. 

The question is: Is there any exception to this rule if simply driving past (imagine getting pulled over while passing) a school while wearing a firearm or console carry or whatever. Not going to the school, just simply en route to some other non-restricted location. In NJ, its nearly impossible to not drive past a school less than 450ft from the roadway. Minus any exception, and considering that common sense has no place in NJ law, something like this serves to further nullify the rights restored by Bruen.

Curious if anyone has considered this and if anyone knows of any exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, but most firearms violations in NJ are a felony. Also, the 450 feet requirement sounds like statewide hunting regulations so I suspect it may be a state law redundantly added into local law. I don't know, but I also don't want to find out the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhere else, I'd agree with you, but this is NJ. Sure, there are many pro-gun or simply intelligent, sensible officers. But there are plenty here that think that only they should carry guns and will charge you even if the case is flimsy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're screwed. Drive carefully and safely to not trigger the stop in the first place. That's what I would do.

You are also absolutely right - even some of the so-called "pro 2A" officers think that the police should be the only ones carrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm expecting the NJ legislature to pass some type of law like NY, which makes most places prohibited. I think that' would be a bad move economically for a business not to explicitly allow guns. If even 5% of a business's customers decide not to patronize an unfriendly business, it will hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, snappy456 said:

I'm expecting the NJ legislature to pass some type of law like NY, which makes most places prohibited.

I wouldn't be surprised. But if they have any sense left (which I realize is a faint hope) they might wait to see what happens with NY if their law is thrown out. It will be challenged, and IMO it will be thrown out. It's a blatant attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. Although who knows how long that might take.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2022 at 4:26 PM, snappy456 said:

I'm expecting the NJ legislature to pass some type of law like NY, which makes most places prohibited. I think that' would be a bad move economically for a business not to explicitly allow guns. If even 5% of a business's customers decide not to patronize an unfriendly business, it will hurt them.

Murphy said as much. I suspect that he is waiting to see how NY's law plays out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight.  When only the elites were allowed to CCW, they could basically carry anywhere with a few exceptions such as schools, courthouses, etc. 

But now that the unwashed masses, i.e., us are allowed to carry, they will place as many restrictions as possible on where we can carry?

I would think that any substantial changes to the existing policies could be challenged?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jm1827 said:

So, let me get this straight.  When only the elites were allowed to CCW, they could basically carry anywhere with a few exceptions such as schools, courthouses, etc. 

But now that the unwashed masses, i.e., us are allowed to carry, they will place as many restrictions as possible on where we can carry?

I would think that any substantial changes to the existing policies could be challenged?

 

Not yet.  "They" are working on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2022 at 11:26 PM, maintenanceguy said:

What's the penalty for violating a town ordinance?  I doubt it has much teeth. 

Wouldn't a violation require anyone applying for a carry permit (or FID, PtP, etc.) to reply "Yes" to any question about disorderly persons offense convictions, and wouldn't that answer likely be used to deny the application? I don't know if it's typical, but this ordinance also has an especially draconian and ridiculous provision:

No person shall enter or go upon any private property within the Township carrying any firearm or weapon, and no person shall use or discharge any firearm or weapon upon or into any private property in the Township, unless such person:
A.  Is the owner, a member of the immediate family (within two degrees of consanguinity) of the owner, or a tenant of the private property, except that for purposes of hunting, such person must have a valid license to hunt issued by the State of New Jersey;
B.  Has complied with the hunting regulations set forth in § 165-4;
C.  Carries the written permission of the property owner (indicating the duration of its effectiveness) to use firearms and weapons on the property for target practice, skeet or trap shooting or for purposes of instruction; or
D.  Is a law enforcement officer identified in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6 in the performance of his or her duties.
 
Bolding mine. Seriously, WTF? I read that as prohibiting a friend of the property owner who isn't also a kissing cousin or closer from carrying on the owner's property. even if he has the blessing of the owner (except when hunting, or engaging in one of several named varieties of sport shooting). Wouldn't that be contrary to the Fourth Amendment, anyway?
Seeing this motivated me to search my own municipality's code for the word "firearm". Fortunately, I came up empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

Murphy said as much. I suspect that he is waiting to see how NY's law plays out. 

That's because Murphy always follows NY's lead as he followed Cuomo with COVID restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2022 at 10:56 PM, g17owner said:

I was reading my town's firearm ordinances last night: https://ecode360.com/27509953

Section 165-3 Subsection B: No person shall carry a loaded firearm or weapon or drawn bow within 450 feet of any school property or public playing field.

I imagine many towns have similar laws and this is not unique to Mendham. 

The question is: Is there any exception to this rule if simply driving past (imagine getting pulled over while passing) a school while wearing a firearm or console carry or whatever. Not going to the school, just simply en route to some other non-restricted location. In NJ, its nearly impossible to not drive past a school less than 450ft from the roadway. Minus any exception, and considering that common sense has no place in NJ law, something like this serves to further nullify the rights restored by Bruen.

Curious if anyone has considered this and if anyone knows of any exception?

 

8 hours ago, samiam said:

Wouldn't a violation require anyone applying for a carry permit (or FID, PtP, etc.) to reply "Yes" to any question about disorderly persons offense convictions, and wouldn't that answer likely be used to deny the application? I don't know if it's typical, but this ordinance also has an especially draconian and ridiculous provision:

No person shall enter or go upon any private property within the Township carrying any firearm or weapon, and no person shall use or discharge any firearm or weapon upon or into any private property in the Township, unless such person:
A.  Is the owner, a member of the immediate family (within two degrees of consanguinity) of the owner, or a tenant of the private property, except that for purposes of hunting, such person must have a valid license to hunt issued by the State of New Jersey;
B.  Has complied with the hunting regulations set forth in § 165-4;
C.  Carries the written permission of the property owner (indicating the duration of its effectiveness) to use firearms and weapons on the property for target practice, skeet or trap shooting or for purposes of instruction; or
D.  Is a law enforcement officer identified in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6 in the performance of his or her duties.
 
Bolding mine. Seriously, WTF? I read that as prohibiting a friend of the property owner who isn't also a kissing cousin or closer from carrying on the owner's property. even if he has the blessing of the owner (except when hunting, or engaging in one of several named varieties of sport shooting). Wouldn't that be contrary to the Fourth Amendment, anyway?
Seeing this motivated me to search my own municipality's code for the word "firearm". Fortunately, I came up empty. 

I think you're both overthinking this.

I never heard of a city ordinance that's a felony.

The only concern is if you carry on your friend's property is he going to call the police and turn you in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

 

I think you're both overthinking this.

I never heard of a city ordinance that's a felony.

The only concern is if you carry on your friend's property is he going to call the police and turn you in.

I don't want even a disorderly persons offense on my record. 

 

By the way I just re-checked the statute and possession on school property is a crime of the third degree (felony). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

I don't want even a disorderly persons offense on my record. 

 

By the way I just re-checked the statute and possession on school property is a crime of the third degree (felony). 

A city ordinance is not a crime. It is not even a misdemeanor.

You are correct possession on school property is a felony.  However, the original post said you were driving by the school. The street is not school property.  It is a public throrofare. IANAL but I'd argue the sidewalk by the school is also a public thorofare and not considered school property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GRIZ said:

 

I think you're both overthinking this.

I never heard of a city ordinance that's a felony.

The only concern is if you carry on your friend's property is he going to call the police and turn you in.

I'm good, I don't have any friends!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...