Can we get Lautenberg and Brian Miller charged with illegal assault weapon possession?

[halbautomatisch 60]

Since we have had many discussions here about how it is considered an illegal transfer to hand someone (even momentarily) a firearm who does not have an FID or PP unless you are at a gun range, how can it be legal under NJ law for them to hold these firearms since they are not LEO's and almost certainly do not have FID's or a carry license?

 

If they were charged, I'll bet they would change the law quickly (although they would most likely just exempt people at a press conference).

 

 

I could not isolate this story out of the entire broadcast, but if you advance to 6:45 you will get right to the story.

http://www.njn.net/news/watch/wednesday.html

 

 

Yes, I know they will never charged even if they are technically breaking the law.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Here's a press release right from the Mummy himself

 

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=331392&

[halbautomatisch 60]

Here's a press release right from the Mummy himself

 

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=331392&

Thanks, but the point was Lautenmummy and Miller are physically holding what look like Mac 10's with high cap mags in the NJN news story.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Thanks, but the point was Lautenmummy and Miller are physically holding what look like Mac 10's with high cap mags in the NJN news story.

 

And I just realized, isn't a Mac 10 illegal in NJ anyway? If so, what's a limit on mag's gonna do??

[Krdshrk 3,877]

All of those guns were illegal machine pistols.

[halbautomatisch 60]

And I just realized, isn't a Mac 10 illegal in NJ anyway? If so, what's a limit on mag's gonna do??

Since when does Lautenmummy make sense with anything he does?

[Dan 177]

Good one. There are no provisions in the statues that I can find for "temporary transfer" of firearms being used here.

 

Looks like Brian Miller was holding a Cobray, usually a FA gun. He could be charged for posession of a machine gun as well as illegal possession of a handgun.

 

It would never stick, selective enforcement at its best, and as far as I know you can't force a DA to press criminal charges.

 

Although it would be fun to have this researched to make sure there aren't any provisions. Then if there really really aren't any.. see them squirm if a news article was publicized with the facts and how the anti-gun rights people don't follow NJ gun laws.

[vjf915 456]

Good one. There are no provisions in the statues that I can find for "temporary transfer" of firearms being used here.

 

Looks like Brian Miller was holding a Cobray, usually a FA gun. He could be charged for posession of a machine gun as well as illegal possession of a handgun.

 

It would never stick, selective enforcement at its best, and as far as I know you can't force a DA to press criminal charges.

 

Although it would be fun to have this researched to make sure there aren't any provisions. Then if there really really aren't any.. see them squirm if a news article was publicized with the facts and how the anti-gun rights people don't follow NJ gun laws.

So.....what do we need to do in order to make this happen?

 

Serious question.

[PK90 3,570]

Contact the Attorney General and tell them you have video proof that a politician was in possession of an assault weapon. Ask them what they intend to do with it prior to you releasing the video to the press.

[halbautomatisch 60]

Good one. There are no provisions in the statues that I can find for "temporary transfer" of firearms being used here.

 

Looks like Brian Miller was holding a Cobray, usually a FA gun. He could be charged for posession of a machine gun as well as illegal possession of a handgun.

 

It would never stick, selective enforcement at its best, and as far as I know you can't force a DA to press criminal charges.

 

Although it would be fun to have this researched to make sure there aren't any provisions. Then if there really really aren't any.. see them squirm if a news article was publicized with the facts and how the anti-gun rights people don't follow NJ gun laws.

This was my point exactly.

 

This falls into the same column as when the county prosecutors do gun buy backs. There is no provision in the law that allows them to buy guns from the general public, the only way for a person to voluntarily dispose of firearm legally to the government is to surrender it to their local PD after sending written notification ahead of time.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Hey guys, calm down. The "transfer" seems to be legal as:

 

N.J.S.2C:58-2, may temporarily transfer a handgun, rifleor shotgun to another person who is 18 years of age or older, whether or not the person receiving the firearm holds a firearms purchaser identification card or a permit to carry a handgun. The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency,

 

These guns were undoubtedly supplied by a LE agency. If the LE agency legally possesses the firearm It seems that this temporary transfer is legal.

[PK90 3,570]

Were they on a range?

[e80hydro 120]

All of those weapons are seized as evidence so it's pointless. However, you could point out that the Mac-10 (I think it is?) he's holding up is already a banned weapon, and all they are proving is criminals don't obey the strict gun control laws of NJ so why are we advocating for more?

 

We should send this video link to all our esteemed representatives pointing out they were displaying mostly machine guns which are prohibited in NJ so whats their point?

[Nick S 2]

All of those weapons are seized as evidence so it's pointless. However, you could point out that the Mac-10 (I think it is?) he's holding up is already a banned weapon, and all they are proving is criminals don't obey the strict gun control laws of NJ so why are we advocating for more?

 

We should send this video link to all our esteemed representatives pointing out they were displaying mostly machine guns which are prohibited in NJ so whats their point?

 

This is the best way to deal with things. Trying to get a politician arrested for holding up a gun on a TV news broadcast isn't going to work and it's just going to make us gun advocates look like gun nuts and not responsible gun owners. We cannot resort to childish tactics. The SAF lawsuit is the first step in many that needs to happen. Then we need to vote and get friends, family and others out to vote for people who support gun rights and not these feel good pieces of legislation that don't work.

[Dan 177]

A news article pointing out the statutes and how they could be interpreted to being violated during this news conference would be eye opening. I'm not suggesting push for charges, but to demonstrate the draconian laws already in place, and how even law-abiding (if you can call politicians that) people could get caught up in the technicalities... which carry extremely harsh sentances. If done properly, it would be and educating experience for readers.

[halbautomatisch 60]

A news article pointing out the statutes and how they could be interpreted to being violated during this news conference would be eye opening. I'm not suggesting push for charges, but to demonstrate the draconian laws already in place, and how even law-abiding (if you can call politicians that) people could get caught up in the technicalities... which carry extremely harsh sentances. If done properly, it would be and educating experience for readers.

This would probably make a good arguement in the case to get the possession laws revampted, pointing out that they were actually commiting a felony and could theoretically face 5 or so years in jail.

 

This was at the Plainfield city hall, not at a firing range.

[GRIZ 3,369]

This was at the Plainfield city hall, not at a firing range.

 

It doesn't have to be at a range. Please read the statute as I have posted it above,

 

"if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency,"

 

All of those weapons are seized as evidence

 

If they are evidence they are in custody of the police department the "transfer" is legal as per the statute.

 

That's the same comma as in the 2A. A comma is a separation of elements in a sentence. Just as a well regulated miltia has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a firing range has nothing to do with a law enforcement agency in the statute.

[cubflyer50 1]

"Guns are used to murder nearly 9,500 people in the country in an average year. There were 220 recorded gun murders in New Jersey in 2009" This statement by Lautenberg only give more reason to let LAW ABIDING citizens to legally carry a firearm....

[Dan 177]

This was at the Plainfield city hall, not at a firing range.

 

It doesn't have to be at a range. Please read the statute as I have posted it above,

 

"if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency,"

 

All of those weapons are seized as evidence

 

If they are evidence they are in custody of the police department the "transfer" is legal as per the statute.

 

That's the same comma as in the 2A. A comma is a separation of elements in a sentence. Just as a well regulated miltia has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a firing range has nothing to do with a law enforcement agency in the statute.

 

 

OK makes sense. Took 219 years for the Supreme Court to finally decipher that comma in the 2A, so why can't we have our fun with it for a few days?

[halbautomatisch 60]

This was at the Plainfield city hall, not at a firing range.

 

It doesn't have to be at a range. Please read the statute as I have posted it above,

 

"if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency,"

 

All of those weapons are seized as evidence

 

If they are evidence they are in custody of the police department the "transfer" is legal as per the statute.

 

That's the same comma as in the 2A. A comma is a separation of elements in a sentence. Just as a well regulated miltia has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a firing range has nothing to do with a law enforcement agency in the statute.

That's not the way I would interpret that law (for whatever that's worth). If you are going to say that statement is isolated from the rest of items in 2C:58-2 then I could argue that if you, a dealer or a law enforcement agency transferred me a firearm then I could receive, possess, CARRY, or use it ANYWHERE, and not just at a firing range. We all know that is not the case. I believe the comma is there solely because they are listing two separate operators of firing ranges where a transfer would be legal.

 

Major legal battles have occurred over what something written in a law or contract really means. Ultimately it would be up to a judge to interpret what was intended here.

[GRIZ 3,369]

so why can't we have our fun with it for a few days?

 

well okay just as long as no one makes a jerk out of themselves.

 

If you are going to say that statement is isolated from the rest of items in 2C:58-2 then I could argue that if you, a dealer or a law enforcement agency transferred me a firearm then I could receive, possess, CARRY, or use it ANYWHERE, and not just at a firing range.

 

You are not following what the statute says.

 

The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency, a legally recognized military organization or a rifle or pistol club which has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits to the superintendent a list of its members and if the firearm is received,

 

Carry is covered in other atatutes. This statute only covers temporary transfer. Don't put something in the statute that isn't there.

[dnice 0]

Hey guys, calm down. The "transfer" seems to be legal as:

 

N.J.S.2C:58-2, may temporarily transfer a handgun, rifleor shotgun to another person who is 18 years of age or older, whether or not the person receiving the firearm holds a firearms purchaser identification card or a permit to carry a handgun. The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency,

 

These guns were undoubtedly supplied by a LE agency. If the LE agency legally possesses the firearm It seems that this temporary transfer is legal.

 

You need to quote the entire section of the statute. I believe "by law enforcement agency" means that they are running the firing range and that the transfer of the firearm is only for the sole purpose of shooting on the range. Since Lautenberg and Miller were not on a firing range then in my opinion I believe they did illegally possess the firearms when they handled them. See below for the entire section of the statute.

 

"2C:58-3.1. Temporary transfer of firearms

1. a. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-9, N.J.S.2C:58-2, N.J.S.2C:58-3 or any other statute to the contrary concerning the transfer or disposition of firearms, the legal owner, or a dealer licensed under N.J.S.2C:58-2, may temporarily transfer a handgun, rifle or shotgun to another person who is 18 years of age or older, whether or not the person receiving the firearm holds a firearms purchaser identification card or a permit to carry a handgun. The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency, a legally recognized military organization or a rifle or pistol club which has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits to the superintendent a list of its members and if the firearm is received, possessed, carried and used for the sole purpose of target practice, trap or skeet shooting, or competition upon that firing range or instruction and training at any location.

 

A transfer under this subsection shall be for not more than eight consecutive hours in any 24-hour period and may be made for a set fee or an hourly charge.

 

The firearm shall be handled and used by the person to whom it is temporarily transferred only in the actual presence or under the direct supervision of the legal owner of the firearm, the dealer who transferred the firearm or any other person competent to supervise the handling and use of firearms and authorized to act for that purpose by the legal owner or licensed dealer. The legal owner of the firearm or the licensed dealer shall be on the premises or the property of the firing range during the entire time that the firearm is in the possession of the person to whom it is temporarily transferred.

 

The term "legal owner" as used in this subsection means a natural person and does not include an organization, commercial enterprise, or a licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or dealer of firearms."

[GRIZ 3,369]

I believe "by law enforcement agency" means that they are running the firing range

 

The statute says "law enforcement agency" not "at a range run by the LE agency". Don't put something in the statute that isn't there.

 

and if the firearm is received,......instruction and training at any location./i]

 

You didn't read that part. Instruction or training conducted by Lautenberg and Miller! Yes, they are educating us because they are all the experts!

 

Since Lautenberg and Miller were not on a firing range

 

As the statute says above it can be for instruction and training at any location.

 

any other person competent to supervise the handling and use of firearms and authorized to act for that purpose by the legal owner or licensed dealer. The legal owner of the firearm or the licensed dealer shall be on the premises or the property of the firing range during the entire time that the firearm is in the possession of the person to whom it is temporarily transferred.

 

As they are likely seized firearms any designated representative could be present to supervise the handling. Being that a LE agency owns the guns a designated representative can also act as the owner. Same as the owner of a rental range doesn't have to be on the premises, a designated representative rents you the gun.

[Dan 177]

I can see the Griz's logic here.

 

We have persons, dealers, law enforcement , and clubs that can transfer in this paragraph.

 

Legal owners and dealers have the "if" in "if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer"

 

Military organizations and clubs have "and" in " and if the firearm is received, possessed, carried and use"

 

This directly links them to further restrictions on transfers in the paragraph.

 

Law enforcement is just out there, without an "if" or "and", its in the middle of the other two transferee types and their regulations. There is nothing immediately before or after explaining how and where.

 

I don't think we can go and apply the "if" or "and" of legal owners, dealers, and military organizations to the "by a law enforcement agency" statement.

 

This kinda brings up another point. What covers dealers from handing a gun over the counter for a potential customer to see in a gun shop? It reads like the shop has to have a shooting range.

[YankeeFan 49]

Bryan Miller is a supposed "gun safety"expert. Maybe we could charge him with being just plain stupid. I can see at least three different things he's doing wrong.

 

[vjf915 456]

"A man came in with a Mac10 like this, with a magazine like this, with his finger on the trigger like this, pointed really close to my friends head like this"

 

Effin retard.

[Stickle 2]

either way ... all the guns on the table are illegal and the magazines are already illegal in NJ maybe he should mention that next time during he is bull shitting the press. So if they are already illegal in this state what makes him think another law is going to keep the criminals from illegally buying more. :thsmiley_deadhorse:

[e80hydro 120]

He's pointing it in the right direction.

[BigHayden 77]

"A man came in with a Mac10 like this, with a magazine like this, with his finger on the trigger like this, pointed really close to my friends head like this"

 

I almost snarfed my iced tea when I read this.

 

either way ... all the guns on the table are illegal and the magazines are already illegal in NJ maybe he should mention that next time during he is bull shitting the press. So if they are already illegal in this state what makes him think another law is going to keep the criminals from illegally buying more. :thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

You know Lautenmummy... always trying to make the illegal more illegal-er.

 

He's pointing it in the right direction.

 

Doesn't Bryan Miller always say how easy it is for accidents to happen with guns? I wonder what would've happened if the officer who "unloaded" that pistol didn't check the chamber and Mr. Miller had an ND into the good senator's dust-filled noggin...

[halbautomatisch 60]

I can see the Griz's logic here.

 

We have persons, dealers, law enforcement , and clubs that can transfer in this paragraph.

 

Legal owners and dealers have the "if" in "if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer"

 

Military organizations and clubs have "and" in " and if the firearm is received, possessed, carried and use"

 

This directly links them to further restrictions on transfers in the paragraph.

 

Law enforcement is just out there, without an "if" or "and", its in the middle of the other two transferee types and their regulations. There is nothing immediately before or after explaining how and where.

 

I don't think we can go and apply the "if" or "and" of legal owners, dealers, and military organizations to the "by a law enforcement agency" statement.

 

This kinda brings up another point. What covers dealers from handing a gun over the counter for a potential customer to see in a gun shop? It reads like the shop has to have a shooting range.