Borrowing handguns or long guns and ambiguities in law

[Radek 73]

Since NJ only allows firearms (unless you are uniquely lucky SOB with a CCW permit!) in home, place of business, or range, I have the following question.

 

Can one borrow a handgun from a member of the family, e.g., husband and wife. This applies when the original PP was in the name of someone other than the person borrowing the gun. I haven't given any thought to this before, so I have borrowed many times - it's joint property anyway! We all borrow from each other at the range, so I have to assume it's perfectly legal.

 

My wife and I have a bunch of guns, some in her name and some in my name (as to who had the original permit or who's FID was used to purchase a long gun).

 

btw. Do you guys carry along PP copies for each handgun you take to the range? I don't see anything in the law talks about this explicitly, and I doubt the LEO's are versed in the law either (it's so ambiguous in NJ, my head hurts!). Any difference in legal treatment for long guns vs. handguns?

 

What are the legal implication if stopped and questioned by a LEO? What's a "reasonable" answer?

[Jon 264]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

My question is how does a person under 18 hunt with a long gun? They cannot be the legal purchaser and cannot have a COE (too young for FPID).

[Jon 264]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

My question is how does a person under 18 hunt with a long gun? They cannot be the legal purchaser and cannot have a COE (too young for FPID).

 

Under 18 hunters are supposed to be hunting within sight of an adult with a valid license... i believe that is sufficient in the eyes of NJ law... kind of along the same line as a transfer at a range since you're in sight of the weapon at all times.

[robot_hell 72]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

So in that case, she was expected to tell the intruder to wait while she fetched her own handgun in the same house?

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

[Jon 264]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

So in that case, she was expected to tell the intruder to wait while she fetched her own handgun in the same house?

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

Don't ya love Jersey?

[Jon 264]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

My question is how does a person under 18 hunt with a long gun? They cannot be the legal purchaser and cannot have a COE (too young for FPID).

 

It looks like I was incorrect... NJ state law says that someone under 18 can not be "transferred" a long gun for the purpose of hunting... http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... 8-3.1.html

[KpdPipes 388]

My understanding is as follows:

 

For long guns: Legally in order to borrow(this is a transfer in the eyes of NJ law) while not at the range a COE should be completed transferring the gun from one owner to the next, regardless of relationship(married, son, father, etc)

 

For handguns: Legally in order to borrow(again this is a transfer) while not at the range, a pistol permit should be completed. In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

My question is how does a person under 18 hunt with a long gun? They cannot be the legal purchaser and cannot have a COE (too young for FPID).

 

It looks like I was incorrect... NJ state law says that someone under 18 can not be "transferred" a long gun for the purpose of hunting... http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... 8-3.1.html

 

There is an exception for it specifically. I'm looking now

[KpdPipes 388]

2C:58-6.1 Lists all of the exceptions where juveniles may possess firearms

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... 8-6.1.html

[Jon 264]

2C:58-6.1 Lists all of the exceptions where juveniles may possess firearms

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... 8-6.1.html

 

Ah there it is! Thank you for the clarification.

[Guest]

The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

 

link? I am not sure i believe even with living in such an anti-gun state that given the options of following procedure OR picking up a firearm in a critical situation where fear of serious bodily injury OR loss of life may occur that it is reasonable to expect charges be filed.. if an under age driver jumped into their parents car to flee a potential child abductor are they really going to charge them with under age driving? just saying.. i BELIEVE that someone mentioned that this happened.. but I am not so sure that it actually did..

[Jon 264]

The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

 

 

link? I am not sure i believe even with living in such an anti-gun state that given the options of following procedure OR picking up a firearm in a critical situation where fear of serious bodily injury OR loss of life may occur that it is reasonable to expect charges be filed.. if an under age driver jumped into their parents car to flee a potential child abductor are they really going to charge them with under age driving? just saying.. i BELIEVE that someone mentioned that this happened.. but I am not so sure that it actually did..

 

I was searching earlier... I could have sworn that the story was posted with a link but was unsuccessful in locating even the story.

[LorenzoS 100]

In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

Not exactly. In fact the woman was brought to the home of Senator Lautenberg, where she was sacrificed to Satan before her liver was ceremonially eaten by Lautenberg, Feinstein and Hillary Clinton.

 

Come on folks, NJ gun laws are ridiculous but please don't just make up stuff to use as examples of how bad they are.

[Guest]

Not exactly. In fact the woman was brought to the home of Senator Lautenberg, where she was sacrificed to Satan before her liver was ceremonially eaten by Lautenberg, Feinstein and Hillary Clinton.

 

Come on folks, NJ gun laws are ridiculous but please don't just make up stuff to use as examples of how bad they are.

 

 

you hit the nail on the head..

[Jon 264]

In fact, there was a case previously posted on the forum where a handgun was used in a home-defense situation where both husband and wife had FID cards. The handgun used to shoot the intruder was registered to one partner but the spouse actually shot the perp and was charged with an illegal transfer of a handgun.

Not exactly. In fact the woman was brought to the home of Senator Lautenberg, where she was sacrificed to Satan before her liver was ceremonially eaten by Lautenberg, Feinstein and Hillary Clinton.

 

Come on folks, NJ gun laws are ridiculous but please don't just make up stuff to use as examples of how bad they are.

 

No need to be a dickhead... apparently I misread it, so sue me. Here's the thread I was referencing: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6643&hilit=illegal+transfer&start=30

 

And the reference link: http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2008/ ... t_pra.html

 

The first time I skimmed the thread I had assumed that the link was a reference to a particular case, and having re-read the thread I see my error.