Probably gonna be put on walking post for sticking up for fellow gun enthusiast..

[Malsua 1,422]

The purpose isn't always to get proof it is also to see what other info they can gather.

 

So a police officer's duty is to fish for broken laws when there is no evidence to suggest it?

[Shane45 807]

Wolfy, thats known as investigating in some circles

[SpacemanFry 51]

Here's a question for you LEOs that apparently think that a question from a LEO is just a question and not a demand. What happens if let's say I'm stopped at a DUI stop and the cop asks me where I'm going and I say "sorry officer I don't see how that's relevant to this stop"? If you answer nothing happens he just moves on you're delusional. 4 out of 5 cops will pull me over and harass me for a good while trying to find something to slap on me even though I have 0% alcohol in my system and I've done nothing wrong. All because I've broken his illusion he's the top dog. (I'm using "he" here but female officers are worse because they'll perceive that as a disrespect on them because I'm male and they're female)

[SpacemanFry 51]

Wolfy, thats known as investigating in some circles

 

Like illegal wiretaps and planting evidence kind of investigation?

[Malsua 1,422]

Here's a question for you LEOs that apparently think that a question from a LEO is just a question and not a demand. What happens if let's say I'm stopped at a DUI stop and the cop asks me where I'm going and I say "sorry officer I don't see how that's relevant to this stop"? If you answer nothing happens he just moves on you're delusional. 4 out of 5 cops will pull me over and harass me for a good while trying to find something to slap on me even though I have 0% alcohol in my system and I've done nothing wrong. All because I've broken his illusion he's the top dog. (I'm using "he" here but female officers are worse because they'll perceive that as a disrespect on them because I'm male and they're female)

 

Someone here is fond of say "WAY more people talk themselves into trouble than out of it.". The issue shouldn't really be discretionary. Either they broke a law or they didn't. If there are too many laws, and they are too strict and open for "street interpretation" and everyone winds up in trouble then they should be scrapped. As an example, the concept of "professional courtesy" is an insult to a free and open society. Some people shouldn't be more equal than others.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Here's a question for you LEOs that apparently think that a question from a LEO is just a question and not a demand. What happens if let's say I'm stopped at a DUI stop and the cop asks me where I'm going and I say "sorry officer I don't see how that's relevant to this stop"? If you answer nothing happens he just moves on you're delusional. 4 out of 5 cops will pull me over and harass me for a good while trying to find something to slap on me even though I have 0% alcohol in my system and I've done nothing wrong. All because I've broken his illusion he's the top dog. (I'm using "he" here but female officers are worse because they'll perceive that as a disrespect on them because I'm male and they're female)

 

You are generalizing all police. I can only speak for myself. You are orrect that you don't have to tell me. Since it is a dui stop I am going to keep trying to talk to you to see if I can detect an odor of alcohol. If you have been drinking it should be evident. If I am still unsure I am going to keep you there until I am satisfied you are ok to operate a motor vehicle. If at any point I feel you might be under the influence I have every right to perform a field sobriety test. NJ courts just ruled that field sobriety test are not unreasonable if suspicion may be present and does not amount to an arrest. While you may not want to cooperate it just makes the whole process take longer. If you are not intoxicated I want you out of there as fast as possible so I can try to catch someone who is. I will not say that some officers will take you attitude personally and respond by giving you a hard time. Everybody is different

[rdsmith3 19]

I was riding my motorcycle a few years ago in Randolph Twp. I got stopped for speeding on a back road, which I was. In my defense, it was on a stretch that is downhill and the speed limit drops. But, yes, I was speeding. A cop stopped me and asked the usual routine questions. Then he got chattier. This was in the morning (and I don't drink) so he was not trying to assess my sobriety. In my judgment, he was just trying to have a conversation with me, and I went along with it. We ended up shooting the breeze about motorcycles for a while. I was riding a BMW Roadster at the time, and he was interested in that model. He let me off with a warning.

 

I imagine that if the conversation had gone differently, and I was difficult or defensive, I may have gotten a ticket. LEO's are human, too.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I try to follow the motto you get what you give. While I can't always give what I want to it is a fair assessment in dealing with the public. Some people don't respond to politeness while others do. If you want to treat me like **** because you did something wrong and got caught then you can just deal with the penalties. Sometimes based on the situation my interaction with you may be enough to get my point across. I have that discretion. Every situation can be handled a lot of different ways. Just like with your average person LEO's have different personalities

[SpacemanFry 51]

You are generalizing all police. I can only speak for myself. You are orrect that you don't have to tell me. Since it is a dui stop I am going to keep trying to talk to you to see if I can detect an odor of alcohol. If you have been drinking it should be evident. If I am still unsure I am going to keep you there until I am satisfied you are ok to operate a motor vehicle. If at any point I feel you might be under the influence I have every right to perform a field sobriety test. NJ courts just ruled that field sobriety test are not unreasonable if suspicion may be present and does not amount to an arrest. While you may not want to cooperate it just makes the whole process take longer. If you are not intoxicated I want you out of there as fast as possible so I can try to catch someone who is. I will not say that some officers will take you attitude personally and respond by giving you a hard time. Everybody is different

 

You're right, I'm generalizing to make a point. The point is that general people don't know if they are dealing with an asshole cop or a good cop. So if they treat the "question" as just a question and not a "demand" they may get screwed over by a cop who thinks that his questions must be answered or be labeled suspicious.

 

For the record, I'm always nice to cops when I get pulled over etc. Even if they're cranky I know they're just doing their job and it's often a shitty job, and this has saved me from quite a few speeding tickets because most cops usually appreciate not being treated like the enemy.

[Malsua 1,422]

I've never been anything but polite and helpful during the few times i've been stopped. My issues are on the procedural/legal level, not on a personal level. My brother is a LEO and I know some cops through him that are absolute top of the line king aholes to everyone they stop, they enjoy it. Then there are some of the other guys who are great to hang out with, and are a geniune credit to their profession,serving the public with a high level of professionalism . You get all kinds, as in any business.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

BlueLineFish, if you want to CYA, then just check to see if the homeowner was a felon or has any outstanding warrants first before hassling them on their paperwork. Saves them grief, and saves you time.

[Zell959 40]

You're right, I'm generalizing to make a point. The point is that general people don't know if they are dealing with an asshole cop or a good cop. So if they treat the "question" as just a question and not a "demand" they may get screwed over by a cop who thinks that his questions must be answered or be labeled suspicious.

 

Realistically speaking though, is it really such a 50/50 game that deep into the discussion in most cases? I'm inclined to say no.

 

Assholes generally aren't very good at hiding the fact that they're assholes. That includes cops. It shouldn't be to hard to get a sense of what kind of officer you're interacting with right from the start. Unless you're impaired, most should be able to tell the difference between an officer just looking to do their job [who have generally been the majority in my experience] & a state-sponsored bully who thinks their badge makes them a demi-god.

 

Think back to the difficult officers [i would assume that] you've encountered. Didn't you pretty much know they had every intention of giving you a hard time almost instantly? I can't imagine they opened the conversation with a particularly warm greeting or had much time for small talk if all of their energy was focused on reminding you who was in charge every 4 seconds.

[302w 83]

IMO, I am always nice to police unless it is otherwise warrented. For all I know, he could pull me over again and remember me (highly unlikely, though). Plus, if I were to be stopped at a DWI check, and I were a jerk to the guy, he could still make me take the test and waste MORE of my time, or even write me a ticket for some bogus thing (exhaust leak, something hanging from my mirror, etc).

[BlueLineFish 615]

BlueLineFish, if you want to CYA, then just check to see if the homeowner was a felon or has any outstanding warrants first before hassling them on their paperwork. Saves them grief, and saves you time.

 

I would still ask. If he doesn't want to answer then I can go that route. Asking saves more time since I am already there.

[bulpup 98]

But the criminals will do it anyway since... their criminals!!!

 

 

Well yea, there is always that. But that wasn't the point.

[Geek 4]

I still haven't gotten an answer to my question: You ask the guy for paperwork. He doesn't have any. What's next? BLF suggested calling HQ, but that is a non-answer. What would HQ say?

 

Without a contrary answer, my suspicion is you either 1) steal his gun or, 2) arrest him and charge him with a bogus gun crime he hasn't actually committed. We all hear plenty of stories about gun owners being thrown in jail when they've actually done nothing illegal.

 

I'd love to hear something before this thread ends that causes me to see the situation differently, but so far nothing has been said that makes me think this scenario ends well.

[Wolfy 51]

I view the issue that in order to be a good citizen it is your responsibilities to know your rights. So when asked you know how to protect your rights.

 

FNL I am not worried about what these guys opinions are we do still live in America and I would shoot with any of you guys.

[Bob B 103]

I would still ask. If he doesn't want to answer then I can go that route. Asking saves more time since I am already there.

 

BLF,

Which statute are you attempting to enforce?

[tommy3rd 132]

I view the issue that in order to be a good citizen it is your responsibilities to know your rights. So when asked you know how to protect your rights.

let's say you're a good citizen and know your 2A rights, and know your 4A rights as well. This incident comes up, you can't produce the "needed" paperwork, and now they're taking away your guns and dragging you to jail in cuffs. Let's say you can't afford a lawyer and they provide you with one. You get a lawyer and all is well...Who pays for all the other stuff? while you're in jail, there's lost wages. Now you're in a hole because you didn't break any laws? You can argue that your rights were still protected because you didn't get convicted, but you still went through an ordeal because of something you did not do. So, where's the protection there?

[Qel Hoth 33]

In my humble non expert opinion, if you cant prove ownership, the officer can indeed confiscate it because in new jersey all ownership is banned. The burden of proof is on the citizen. The words" posses at your own peril" is where this comes into play. It will then become your burdan to prove ownership and exception(guilty until proven innocent). In the mean time your posession is going to be hockey pucked around the evidence room until you can get in front of a judge to get it back in about 6 months if your lucky. This is why in the other thread I stated that although Im not required to, I carry copies of my PPP when transporting so I can nip it in the bud and prove ownership right ther on the spot so I dont have to fight out proving ownership/exception in front of a judge. IMO this is a dasterdly move by the state because most people ensnared in this perdicament may just decide the value of the pistol is far less than the attourney to reclaim it .

 

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I would have to disagree.

 

2C:39-5b Prohibits possession of a handgun without a permit to carry.

2C:39-5c(1) Prohibits possession of long arms without a FPID.

2C:39-5c(2) Prohibits possession of a loaded long arm.

2C:39-5d Prohibits every other weapon without "manifestly approppriate lawful use" (whatever the hell that means - can I use a scary looking folding knife as a boxcutter or is it not "manifestly appropriate" since we have purposely designed boxcutters.)

 

These four sections establish that ANY firearm, to include BB/pellet guns, are illegal, as well as anything else that can be construed as a weapon, unless there is a "manifestly appropriate use" for said weapon.

 

2C:39-6 Provides exemptions from 2C:39-5

 

2C:39-6e "Nothing in subsections b, c, and d of 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."

 

2C:39-6f Is the section that allows us to transport weapons.

 

2C:39-6g Says how weapons are to be transported.

 

Therefore 2C:39-6e voids any provisions of 2C:39-5b, c, or d when a person is in their business (owned by them), in their house, or on land owned by them. It is legal to own and possess any firearm that is not specifically prohibited (anything falling under 2C:39-3) in your house or on your property without a FPID or PPP. Even if one needed to have a FPID or PPP to come into possession of the firearm, there would not be PC to ask for the documents as they are not required to possess the weapons in those circumstances.

 

Note: None of the above is to be construed as legal advice.

 

EDIT:

 

Under 2C:39-6e I should be able to stand on my driveway in the middle of suburban South Jersey with a loaded handgun on my hip, a loaded rifle in my hands, and an NJ-legal knife in my pocket. Not that I think it's a good idea, but it would be legal.

[Shane45 807]

NJ v Pelleteri

[greatgunstatenj 32]

You get a lawyer and all is well...Who pays for all the other stuff? while you're in jail, there's lost wages.

 

The town, after you sue them! lol Their ignorance of the law is in no way an excuse to harass and/or arrest you. The same as a citizens ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it (how many times do we hear that??).

[greatgunstatenj 32]

A simple solution in my mind would be when you ask for the paperwork, that a follow up statement that it is his right at that time to decide not to provide said paperwork.

 

BLF I simply believe that the general public inherently believes, especially in this state, that they have a legal obligation to comply with the request.

Shane

 

++1

 

I agree with both statements. Very similar to Miranda. A question isn't just a question when being asked by someone in a position of authority, someone who could easily make your life difficult if you decide not to answer.