Taking firearms to another house...

[vjf915 456]

So this is a question I have been tossing around in my head the past couple days. Whenever my mother goes on vacation, she asks if I am interested in "house watching", mostly to keep the dogs company. I live in NJ, she lives in NJ. Let's also agree that all firearms are legal in accordance to both NJ and federal firearms laws, and I am also transporting the firearms in a locked case in the trunk, separate from ammo. Let's also assume that my mother does not object to me possessing firearms in her house. My questions are: 1. Would the transportation of firearms from my house to her house be legal, and does this work for ANY kind of firearm or just long guns (as I believe that transportation laws are more strict for handguns). 2. Would it be legal for me to possess firearms while in her house (again, she does not object to it). One thing I am hung up on is the transportation of the firearms, mainly a handgun. It would not be transportation to/from a range, gun store, or gunsmith. I also do not think that it would fall under the "moving" exemption", as it is technically not my house. Does anyone have any insight on this matter? Again, I am looking for answers for both handguns and long guns.

[HuntingPaper 62]

Good question. I wonder if that qualifies like a temporary residence? If you are member of ANJRPC you can call the lawyers they have in retainer.

[Malsua 1,422]

The long guns would be fine if you have a firearms purchaser ID and I assume you do.

 

To you, your mother's house is no different than a hotel room. Hotel rooms do not qualify as a home in NJ. A leased vacation residence would though.

 

There is some argument that "In the home" would qualify as an exemption FOR YOUR MOTHER if she were home, but may not apply to you. I'm not sure that level of distinction has ever been argued in NJ.

 

If you want to be 100% certain, just take your FPID and a HD shotgun and you're good to go.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I believe as I understand it and the enormous amount of gray area in NJ that you would be fine with a long gun, but not a hand gun with how the exemption clause for transport reads.

 

Harry

[PK90 3,570]

To you, your mother's house is no different than a hotel room. Hotel rooms do not qualify as a home in NJ. A leased vacation residence would though.

 

I seemed to have missed this case. Do you have a link for the source?

[Malsua 1,422]

I seemed to have missed this case. Do you have a link for the source?

 

Revell about the Hotel room.

 

The District Court held that the Port Authority and Erickson were entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, “because probable cause [for the arrest and property seizure] developed during ... [Erickson’s] questioning concerning Revell’s transportation of a handgun and ammunition through New Jersey.” (App. at 78.) The Court found persuasive the defense argument that Revell’s conduct fell outside § 926A since it is undisputed that Revell left the airport with his luggage for an overnight stay at a hotel in New Jersey, thus giving him ready access to the gun during that period. The Court also explained that “§ 926A does not address anything but vehicular travel; it does not encompass keeping the weapon – locked in a case or not – in an airport hotel overnight.” (App. at 77.) Alternatively, the Court held that Erickson was entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed for Revell’s arrest and, therefore, no constitutional right was violated. The District Court also concluded that summary judgment against Revell on his due process claim was proper because he had failed to take advantage of available state remedies for the return of his property, namely, a state court lawsuit.9

 

They were talking about how FOPA does not protect a person in a Hotel. What is not mentioned is the NJ firearm exemptions. If the exemptions were an affirmative defense at the hotel, it would be mentioned in the opinion.

 

As for leases.

 

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

 

A lease would put a property in your possession providing an affirmative defense based on the the listed statute above.

[Dan 177]

If you belong to a shooting club in NJ that fits the Statute definition here, the "Directly" clause is not present. I interpret this as you being able to go target shooting with your guns, but on the way you stop over Mom's for a few days. This is my opinion of the law, and one of the great benefits of belonging to a shooting club in NJ.

 

f. Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent:

 

(1) A member of any rifle or pistol club organized in accordance with the rules prescribed by the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, in going to or from a place of target practice, carrying such firearms as are necessary for said target practice, provided that the club has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits a list of its members to the superintendent and provided further that the firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section;

[vjf915 456]

There is some argument that "In the home" would qualify as an exemption FOR YOUR MOTHER if she were home, but may not apply to you.

 

If you want to be 100% certain, just take your FPID and a HD shotgun and you're good to go.

Although "in the home" may apply to my mother, she would not be the one using the firearms if the need were to arise (mainly because she wouldn't be there). Therefore "in the home" applying to her is kind of a moot point. The rest of your post is kind of how I felt, since the handgun doesn't fall under the transportation exemptions. However, why would I NEED to take my FPID card with me? I know that it's a good security, but why would I NEED to take it?

[Dan 177]

Although "in the home" may apply to my mother, she would not be the one using the firearms if the need were to arise (mainly because she wouldn't be there). Therefore "in the home" applying to her is kind of a moot point. The rest of your post is kind of how I felt, since the handgun doesn't fall under the transportation exemptions. However, why would I NEED to take my FPID card with me? I know that it's a good security, but why would I NEED to take it?

 

The widespread opinion is that having your FID along with a rifle or shotgun affords protections/privileges regarding possession outside of the general firearms exemptions in 2C:39-6 due to this in 2C:39-5 :

 

c.Rifles and shotguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a firearms purchaser identification card in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-3, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

[vjf915 456]

The widespread opinion is that having your FID along with a rifle or shotgun affords protections/privileges regarding possession outside of the general firearms exemptions in 2C:39-6 due to this in 2C:39-5 :

c.Rifles and shotguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a firearms purchaser identification card in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-3, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

Right. So it's protection from a cop who doesn't know the difference between obtained and possessing. Obtain does not mean I need to carry it with me while in possession of a long gun. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I understand that you know this as well. I appreciate all your insight, it's been a great help, but I'm more concerned about the actual laws and not what "might" happen if someone doesn't know the law. It looks like the general consensus is that it will work for long guns, but handguns wouldn't be legal to transport since a handgun wouldn't fall under the exemptions.

[Malsua 1,422]

However, why would I NEED to take my FPID card with me? I know that it's a good security, but why would I NEED to take it?

 

The Firearms Purchaser ID card is essentially a "Carry Permit" for a long gun. It does not allow you to carry a loaded long gun in public but it does permit you to have a long gun in your possession anywhere that it is legal to do so. Your mother's home would be included in that definition. With the FPID on your person, you are not operating under the NJ exemptions for having a firearm unlike a handgun where you must be within the exemptions 100% of the time.

[vjf915 456]

Unless there is another law that has not been mentioned, the law Dan quoted does not require me to be in possession of the FPID card while in possession of the firearms. That law requires me to obtain the FPID card first. I have already obtained the FPID card.

[Dan 177]

Right. So it's protection from a cop who doesn't know the difference between obtained and possessing. Obtain does not mean I need to carry it with me while in possession of a long gun. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I understand that you know this as well. I appreciate all your insight, it's been a great help, but I'm more concerned about the actual laws and not what "might" happen if someone doesn't know the law. It looks like the general consensus is that it will work for long guns, but handguns wouldn't be legal to transport since a handgun wouldn't fall under the exemptions.

 

I think we may have some confusion.

 

I'm proposing that an FID is used to "obtain.. as in purchase, aquire" and according to the section I quoted above in 2C:39-5 as a "possession" license/permit/instrument/whatever you want to call it for long guns. This is above and beyond what any person can do with firearms as allowed in the exemptions. If you do not have your FID card along with the long gun, you better be in possession and traveling under the exemptions stated in 2C:39-6.

[Malsua 1,422]

I think we may have some confusion.

 

I'm proposing that an FID is used to "obtain.. as in purchase, aquire" and according to the section I quoted above in 2C:39-5 as a "possession" license/permit/instrument/whatever you want to call it for long guns. This is above and beyond what any person can do with firearms as allowed in the exemptions. If you do not have your FID card along with the long gun, you better be in possession and traveling under the exemptions stated in 2C:39-6.

 

Right.

 

The point being, if you are outside of the exemptions, you will be cooling your heels while a judge figures out if you obtained a Firearms Purchaser ID. If you have the FPID on your person while possessing a long gun outside of the exemptions, you are LEGAL and will be let go on the spot(again, assuming it isn't some jackhole LEO). If you do not have your card, you are looking at some procedural delays(i.e. you're in a holding cell) while they figure out if you have obtained it. You will probably not be criminally charged, you will still probably be arrested.

[vjf915 456]

The point being, if you are outside of the exemptions, you will be cooling your heels while a judge figures out if you obtained a Firearms Purchaser ID.

Which, although is pretty easy to figure out, completely makes sense. Sorry for the confusion guys, and thanks for continuing to explain it to me.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Quote

 

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

 

 

A lease would put a property in your possession providing an affirmative defense based on the the listed statute above.

 

 

A verbal contract is as binding as a written one. His Mother giving him exclusive use of the property in her absence, verbally or in writing, would be putting him in possession of the property fitting the exception listed above.

[vjf915 456]

Only issue is....verbal contract can only be proven if both parties agree that it existed, I don't see that as being much of an issue though. However under those circumstances, assuming that is true and accurate, I would also be able to bring a handgun.

[GRIZ 3,369]

However under those circumstances, assuming that is true and accurate, I would also be able to bring a handgun.

 

That's my take too. The Revell decision has no bearing as we are not talking anywhere near the same set of circumstances.

[hardline_42 7]

Only issue is....verbal contract can only be proven if both parties agree that it existed, I don't see that as being much of an issue though. However under those circumstances, assuming that is true and accurate, I would also be able to bring a handgun.

Write a check in your mother's name for $1. In the notes section, write "Rent." Proof of payment to go with the verbal agreement would go a further in establishing that her home is your "residence," however temporary it may be.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Write a check in your mother's name for $1.

 

Not a bad idea but really not needed. If I give my vacation house to my daughter for a week, a month, or a year without charging her would be the same circumstances.

[Malsua 1,422]

However under those circumstances, assuming that is true and accurate, I would also be able to bring a handgun.

 

The Revell decision has no bearing as we are not talking anywhere near the same set of circumstances.

 

The Revell decision clarified that a hotel is not a legal place covered under the exemptions or FOPA. If you can work you way into possession somehow and I agree a verbal contract should suffice, then handguns would be legal. That said, there's no doubt that a FPID + long gun would be 100% legal, without questions.

[karcirate 1]

I think this is what was said, but I want to be sure: with an FID, one may carry long guns (unloaded, locked, etc.) even when not going to/from the range?

[GRIZ 3,369]

The Revell decision clarified that a hotel is not a legal place covered under the exemptions or FOPA.

 

I realize that and here we are talking about "housesitting" for a period of maybe a few weeks where he will have full and exclusive use of the property not just spending the night.

[Malsua 1,422]

The Revell decision clarified that a hotel is not a legal place covered under the exemptions or FOPA.

 

I realize that and here we are talking about "housesitting" for a period of maybe a few weeks where he will have full and exclusive use of the property not just spending the night.

 

Possession is the key. Without possession, another person's home is no different than a hotel room. House sitting would clearly qualify more if you're staying there than if you just went over to feed the fish and water the plants.

[Dan 177]

It sad that we have to deliberate this. The fact that you cannot just get into your car with your pistol strapped to your side and drive to your mom's for a few days is unconstitutional in my mind.

[Malsua 1,422]

I think this is what was said, but I want to be sure: with an FID, one may carry long guns (unloaded, locked, etc.) even when not going to/from the range?

 

Yes. Anywhere legal. I.E. You can go over to friends house with it and display it to him. Handing it to him becomes a potential illegal transfer but lets avoid that stupidity for now. You could go out of your way to eat at a restaurant with it in the trunk, completely legally. The moment you have a handgun, the rules change and you must be within the exemptions outlined in the law.

 

This does not mean you can walk down the street with it openly displayed as there are other rules they'll get you on...disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, etc. They can't get you for possession however.

[SpecialK 193]

I agree with Dan, this is sad, depressing, down right pathetic.

[halbautomatisch 60]

The Revell decision clarified that a hotel is not a legal place covered under the exemptions or FOPA. If you can work you way into possession somehow and I agree a verbal contract should suffice, then handguns would be legal. That said, there's no doubt that a FPID + long gun would be 100% legal, without questions.

I would say if you could make the case that this would be legal (at his mothers house), a hotel room would also have to be legal (putting the Revell case aside for a moment). Think about it..... you are taking possession of a hotel room and even have contract to prove it. Where do you draw the line? I have done work for some extended stay hotels, and the maintenance guy was telling me that they had some people who had sold their houses and had moved in permanently, while others are only staying for a week or a month in the same facility. Other people move into hotels for a time while moving from one house to another or while renovating their house.

[Malsua 1,422]

I would say if you could make the case that this would be legal (at his mothers house), a hotel room would also have to be legal (putting the Revell case aside for a moment). Think about it..... you are taking possession of a hotel room and even have contract to prove it. Where do you draw the line? I have done work for some extended stay hotels, and the maintenance guy was telling me that they had some people who had sold their houses and had moved in permanently, while others are only staying for a week or a month in the same facility. Other people move into hotels for a time while moving from one house to another or while renovating their house.

 

I think a long term stay under a contract in a hotel room is one thing. Staying a night or five is entirely different. You have not changed your residence, you will not be "moving in" or altering the place as your living quarters, you're just flopping down for a bit.

[BigHayden 77]

I would say if you could make the case that this would be legal (at his mothers house), a hotel room would also have to be legal (putting the Revell case aside for a moment). Think about it..... you are taking possession of a hotel room and even have contract to prove it. Where do you draw the line? I have done work for some extended stay hotels, and the maintenance guy was telling me that they had some people who had sold their houses and had moved in permanently, while others are only staying for a week or a month in the same facility. Other people move into hotels for a time while moving from one house to another or while renovating their house.

 

The appropriate question is "where do they draw the line?". The more we analyze this, the clearer it becomes that gun control isn't about "keeping dangerous people from getting dangerous weapons", as Paul Helmke likes to say, but is about keeping all law abiding people from having any gun, period.