Legal or Not

[ianargent 7]

2C:39-2. Presumptions

a. Possession of firearms, weapons, destructive devices, silencers, or explosives in a vehicle. When a firearm, weapon, destructive device, silencer, or explosive described in this chapter is found in a vehicle, it is presumed to be in the possession of the occupant if there is but one. If there is more than one occupant in the vehicle, it shall be presumed to be in the possession of all, except under the following circumstances:

 

(1) When it is found upon the person of one of the occupants, it shall be presumed to be in the possession of that occupant alone;

 

(2) When the vehicle is not a stolen one and the weapon or other instrument is found out of view in a glove compartment, trunk or other enclosed customary depository, it shall be presumed to be in the possession of the occupant or occupants who own or have authority to operate the vehicle; and

 

(3) When the vehicle is a taxicab and a weapon or other instrument is found in the passenger's portion of the vehicle, it shall be presumed to be in the possession of all the passengers, if there are any, and if not, in the possession of the driver.

 

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html and follow the relevant links

[PK90 3,445]

Above would apply only if the real owner doesn't speak up and say the firearm is his.

[ianargent 7]

In this state?

[HammerHead 3]

Reading the above, I'd say that in the eyes of NJ statutes most of us are criminally liable...

It's illegal to even touch a spouse's firearm in one's own home...even if she/he is in the same room?!?

This is absolutely crazy.

[ianargent 7]

Welcome to NJ firearms laws

[JackDaWack 2,542]

It works the same for drugs, if no one claims possession it is guilty by association. They add this BS so there is always someone or someone's to charge, they don't care who is right or who is wrong. One of my friends was a DD one night we went out to party, on her way home she was dropping friends off and got pulled over, she explained she was sober and the DD for the night, they didnt care, pulled her from the car and searched it for no reason, the passengers were intoxicated needless to say. Upon searching the car they found a bag of coke under the back seat, her friend had tried to hide it, no one claimed the coke and she was charge with possesion. They said anything in her car was her responsibility, even though she did not know about it. She took a drug test at the station and came up clean. Charges stood and she went on probation for a year. So i guess NJ expects you to either have stand up friends, or perform a strip search for each person getting into your car.

 

Even more so, if someone brings a firearm into your car with out your knowledge you could be charge with illegal possession and transport of a firearm. NJ law was made so they don't have to do any real police work, i'm sure many police officers out there would agree for better or worse.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

How would the police even know? If something happens, tell em it's your gun and show your FPID...

[ianargent 7]

FID doesn't help you if it's a handgun. And I doubt it will stop the arrest for a longarm. And even so, a motivated prosecutor could nail you for illegal transfer...

[PK90 3,445]

Reading the above, I'd say that in the eyes of NJ statutes most of us are criminally liable...

It's illegal to even touch a spouse's firearm in one's own home...even if she/he is in the same room?!?

This is absolutely crazy.

 

Also, not true.

[ianargent 7]

No legal way to transfer it, no legal way to possess a firearm in NJ without transfer.

 

I wish I could find the Nappen editorial where he went over this - but I can't craft a search that doesn't get buried under Aitken results.

[Malsua 1,402]

No legal way to transfer it, no legal way to possess a firearm in NJ without transfer.

 

I wish I could find the Nappen editorial where he went over this - but I can't craft a search that doesn't get buried under Aitken results.

 

FWIW, if you're using google, just put -aitken

 

it will eliminate any result with aitken in it.

[ianargent 7]

It didn't help. I want to say it was an editorial primarily on the stupidity of the NJ AWB, but it's been a while

[PK90 3,445]

No legal way to transfer it, no legal way to possess a firearm in NJ without transfer.

 

I wish I could find the Nappen editorial where he went over this - but I can't craft a search that doesn't get buried under Aitken results.

You are referring to only the temporary transfer at specific locations other than what is exempted under the law.

 

NJS 2C:39-5b

Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the third degree if the handgun is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person. Otherwise it is a crime of the second degree.

 

 

NJS 2C:39-6e

Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, from any place of purchase to his residence or place of business, between his dwelling and his place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair. For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.

[ianargent 7]

I was eliding. In this case, it wouldn't be the possession that was illegal per se (as you point out, it is an exemption to possess at home); it's the (temporary) transfer. I expect that this wouldn't come up much, due to not being under observation by a cop, but... I seriously wasn't expecting the judge to tell the jury to ignore the "moving" exemption prior to the Aitken case, either.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

FID doesn't help you if it's a handgun. And I doubt it will stop the arrest for a longarm. And even so, a motivated prosecutor could nail you for illegal transfer...

 

You're not required to have the pistol purchase permits with you. Even the FPID isn't a legal requirement. They're both purchase permits. Not ownership ones.

 

Think of a scenario where the cops will pull you over or talk to you at the range. They have no legal right to ask you to provide paperwork for owning the firearm as long as you are transporting and using the firearm within the exceptions laid out in the law.

 

In fact: what about people who own guns but do not have FPIDs or PPPs? Then what?

 

The cops will never know, and they probably won't give a damn as long as your in the exceptions zone.

[mrjam2jab 9]

Since registration is voluntary...how could LEO determine ownership?

 

NJ Sales database?

 

Let's say someone moved into NJ with it. Now it wouldn't be in a NJ sales database.

[ianargent 7]

Clearly the cops did give a damn for someone who was in an exception zone - see Brian Aitken. A cop who is feeling cranky will arrest and let the prosecutor settle the matter...

 

The reason I mentioned the FID is that the law forbids possession of a longarm unless the possessor has obtained a FID, except under the exemptions. So, yes, a FID is relevant to possession of a longarm.

 

"The New Jersey Supreme Court has a bias against guns and gun owners. In a famous decision they said, 'When it comes to firearms, the citizen acts at his own peril.'" Until that changes, assume the law is the enemy and plan accordingly...

[papercutninja 24]

I think that the Aitken scenario is an exception because there was a domestic dispute involved with his mother, so I don't know if we should use that as an example.

[ianargent 7]

He's the most visible of a host of people victimized by cops misinterpreting or aggressively interpreting the law. There was that guy who was traveling under FOPA who got busted in Newark Airport, for one.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

And who here has EVER heard of anyone having ANY type of legal issue using their spouses gun at a gun range or to shoot an intruder in their home?

 

I bet NO ONE and I would like to see a reference to 1 instance this has been prosecuted in NJ!

[ianargent 7]

Like I said, I saw an editorial by Nappen where he mentioned a judge being prosecuted for illegal transfer in his living room...

[Malsua 1,402]

Like I said, I saw an editorial by Nappen where he mentioned a judge being prosecuted for illegal transfer in his living room...

 

Scott Bach editorial. If you search back to here http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/14723-using-someone-elses-gun-at-cherry-ridge-getting-it-there/page__view__findpost__p__197135 we've had a similar conversation before.

 

http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2008/01/stop_on_your_way_to_target_pra.html

[ianargent 7]

Thanks Malsua, that was it. Real people > google

[mikeyboyeee 66]

Like I said, I saw an editorial by Nappen where he mentioned a judge being prosecuted for illegal transfer in his living room...

 

So far, that is simply hearsay.

[Malsua 1,402]

So far, that is simply hearsay.

 

I just sent Scott a note about it asking for more detail.

[Malsua 1,402]

I just sent Scott a note about it asking for more detail.

 

I got a response from Mr Bach.

 

He's not at liberty to discuss the case as the file is confidential.

 

Oh well, was worth a shot.

[ianargent 7]

I doubt there's any reason to believe an incident reported by Scott Bach didn't happen