joecs1 11 Posted December 21, 2011 The law doesn't define residence either, but we all agree that if you live there, it is your residence. Residence is also preceded by the word "his", which would have to imply ownership, if we follow your argument. If so, then Dan's sister would not be legal to carry a gun in their home because it isn't "hers". Out of curiosity, of whom did you inquire about this? You like to argue the logical point, but our laws aren't written to be logical. They are explicitly written to be traps. If dans sister has a drivers license with dans address, then the state recognizes that as her address. NJDMV requires 6 pts of id and some form of proof of address ie...a telephone bill etc! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jon 264 Posted December 21, 2011 If dans sister has a drivers license with dans address, then the state recognizes that as her address. NJDMV requires 6 pts of id and some form of proof of address ie...a telephone bill etc! FYI, changing your address through NJMVC is as easy as logging onto the website and and filling out your new address. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,570 Posted December 21, 2011 And my understanding, Civil is not innocent until proven guilty... it can be more likely guilty than innocent is good enough. iirc from Business Law. Guilty until proven innocent sounds a lot like NJ Criminal Law sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted December 21, 2011 Is there a double standard with regards to the court's interpretation of the exemptions? "his place of business" refers to a person that has a legal ownership stake in a business, and the location is a fixed location where that business is conducted. This is based on prior case law in NJ v. Valentine. now... "his residence...dwelling...land" , I think there is no argument that if your name is on the lease, deed, property title, etc, that you are covered. Now comes the question of other people living with you without paying any rent who calls your home their "home", yet are not on any legal paperwork. They have their drivers license, mobile phone bills, credit card bills, IRS, passport, work paperwork, insurance, etc all listed as your address. They have their own bedroom, with their possessions all in your house. Now lets say they own guns also, and their FID is your house address, etc. Do 2C:39-6 e. exemptions apply to this person even though they have no legal rights to the property/home/apartment/etc where they call "home"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CageFighter 236 Posted December 21, 2011 Just have ur family add u to the LLC. It will save the headaches now and in the future. Esp if it ever gets passed on to you in full! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted December 21, 2011 Is there a double standard with regards to the court's interpretation of the exemptions? "his place of business" refers to a person that has a legal ownership stake in a business, and the location is a fixed location where that business is conducted. This is based on prior case law in NJ v. Valentine. now... "his residence...dwelling...land" , I think there is no argument that if your name is on the lease, deed, property title, etc, that you are covered. Now comes the question of other people living with you without paying any rent who calls your home their "home", yet are not on any legal paperwork. They have their drivers license, mobile phone bills, credit card bills, IRS, passport, work paperwork, insurance, etc all listed as your address. They have their own bedroom, with their possessions all in your house. Now lets say they own guns also, and their FID is your house address, etc. Do 2C:39-6 e. exemptions apply to this person even though they have no legal rights to the property/home/apartment/etc where they call "home"? you can not "own the business unless you are legally "named" the owner.. residence is far less loose as in you can establish residence in a given area without any lengthy legal process... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted December 21, 2011 So "his place of business" refers to legally having ownership in that business at that location. I disagree but NJ case law backs up this interpretation. and "his residence" refers to a concept of legally "residing" at a location that does not infer any form of legal ownership. As in you do not need to own the residence (noun) for the exemption to apply. In this case, the word would be used as a verb as in "the act of residing" at a place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnott 5 Posted December 22, 2011 Possess: Exercising dominion over property; having custody and control of property. (http://law.yourdictionary.com) Ownership: The total body of rights to use and enjoy a property, to pass it on to someone else as an inheritance, or to convey it by sale. Ownership implies the right to possess property, regardless of whether or not the owner personally makes constructive use of it. (http://law.yourdictionary.com) (To play devils advocate) The only term that seems somewhat ambiguous is the word "possess". It can be readily applied to a place of residence. But if that interpretation were used for a place of business would not a manager be a person having custody but not ownership of property ie, a business? My personal view is that a business must be one that you own. I say this because of the way NJ has written other restrictions with regards to firearms possession. The writing of this legislation seems to follow the narrow limitations that they have always used. It seems unlikely that they somehow deviated from that intent and are allowing all employees at all places of business to carry a firearm (I think it's just wishful thinking to believe that they somehow left some big loophole in the law.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anselmo 87 Posted December 22, 2011 The courts will interpret the law based on what they think the legislature meant. Therefore, as anti-gun as they can. That court case cited was from way back in 1971 and the guy got 60 days in jail. Wonder what the sentence would be today in the same circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted December 22, 2011 I think the answer we want.. is not there to find.. I spent ten years employed by someone who would not bat an eye at me carrying a gun.. trust me.. the thought crossed my mind.. and it sucks that it is as it appears.. I think the general anti gun climate makes the intention clear.. I think the case that was found reinforces that percieved intention.. at this point.. I think the horse is as dead as it can possibly get.. we can certainly kick it a few more times.. but it isn't going to get any more dead than it is now.. thanks again for finding that case... that is a solid example of exactly what we were describing.. granted it is YEARS old.. but I think it mimicks what would happen now.. with the exception of being FAR more strict.. and prosecution being far more aggresive.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blue1 1 Posted December 22, 2011 e.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. I am not a lawyer either, but upon studying this closely, I believe you must own part or all of the business to legally transport and carry there. The portion "...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..." doesn't say, "...place of business, residence, AND land owned or possessed by him..." Place of business, residence and premises are types of land you can own; those, as well as "...other land owned or possessed by him..." means those types of land you own and types not specifically your "place of business, residence, premises" that you own; an example would be a ten acres of woods. That is not a place of business, residence, or premises. It is a plot in the woods. That you must own to carry. If I was the prosecutor, that is the intent and wording of the law that I would argue. Besides, if everyone started carrying at work, the SWHTF and a decison would be defined really quick that would define only owners of businesses can carry. So this is kinda moot. Blue1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
