Traveling with a handgun to a hotel in NJ

[brocglock23 4]

So I got into a little debate with one of my buddies and I believe I'm right but not entirely sure. Here is the short story.

Say there a guy who had his FID card and legally owns a handgun. He is traveling down the shore and renting a house for the weekend. Can he legally bring his handgun with him? Please keep in mind he lives in NJ and traveling to a NJ Shore town.

 

I stated that per our travel laws he couldn't but I was going to find out. I looked through the gun laws and only really found that traveling to the range, gunsmith, FFL or competition would be okay for a NJ resident traveling. Am I missing something?

[BarkNBite 15]

I believe if your renting and sign a lease for a duration of time, you can legally bring your legal firearm to your residence.....I do.....as long as it's not excluded in the lease agreement.

[Malsua 1,422]

Yes, if he's signing a lease, it's a residence and it qualifies.

 

The grey area is short term stays in hotels, like an overnight at the motel 6. If they are not considered your residence, then they don't qualify. Gregg Revell had a handgun in his possession in a hotel room and the court said that the FOPA protections for travel did not include the hotel room. By inference we can assume that NJ law was being violated. If the hotel room was a legal place for Revell to have a handgun, then the FOPA protections wouldn't have been necessary. http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf

[brocglock23 4]

I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure a lease was signed. It was a big house and there was like 20 people staying in it and the property was rented per person. I know I didn't have to sign a lease and I don't believe anyone else did. If this makes a difference in the situation

[PK90 3,573]

I vote NO.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I believe if your renting and sign a lease for a duration of time, you can legally bring your legal firearm to your residence.....I do.....as long as it's not excluded in the lease agreement.

 

Is there case law on bringing a firearm to a rental property where the lease doesn't allow firearms? If you have a firearm in a rental property where the lease doesn't allow them that's an issue between you and the property owner. If you are transporting or possessing a handgun at one of your residences, owned or rented that's an issue between you and the police.

[checko 180]

I vote NO.

 

Agreed. Its not specific enough for me to chance it.

[Malsua 1,422]

I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure a lease was signed. It was a big house and there was like 20 people staying in it and the property was rented per person. I know I didn't have to sign a lease and I don't believe anyone else did. If this makes a difference in the situation

 

If you didn't sign a lease, definitely no. If the property is not owned or possessed by you, it's not your residence. If you could order the other 20 people off it it would qualify as being possessed by you, if they could order you off it, it does not qualify.

[woodentoe 14]

 

If you didn't sign a lease, definitely no. If the property is not owned or possessed by you, it's not your residence. If you could order the other 20 people off it it would qualify as being possessed by you, if they could order you off it, it does not qualify.

 

This is awfully declarative, don't you think? The answer, I think, is thy the law is intentionally vague. It is intentionally vague so that law abiding gun owners will be discouraged from bringing their firearms anywhere. The transport law says property, residence, premises, or dwelling.

 

It CAN be argued that a rental property or hotel room falls into one of those categories. The law DOESN'T SAY property owned or leased by actor. That would be specific and not vague.

 

The truth is that nobody knows for sure what falls in or out of the vague stipulation so we err on the side of caution. No one will know until there is case law or new legislation. And no one wants new legislation because the likelihood is that any new legislation will be MORE restrictive.

[Malsua 1,422]

 

It CAN be argued that a rental property or hotel room falls into one of those categories. The law DOESN'T SAY property owned or leased by actor. That would be specific and not vague.

 

 

The law says "prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" . A lease grants possession. If you possess a property, there is a long process to remove you from it. If someone comes along and says "I own this, you have to leave", you don't possess it.

 

As for a hotel room, again, look at the Revell case. If he was legal to have his pistol in his possession in the hotel room then the question of the applicability of FOPA laws is irrelevant.

 

 

 

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.

[kman 56]

My thought on these things is I never want to see judges and prosecutors butchering these arguments in a court room because they will get it wrong more often than not.

 

Better off just bringing a shotgun in a duffel bag and avoiding the issue entirely. Take the barrel off and it can fit in a medium size bag and nobody would know.

 

You know that if you have to use the pistol in self defense outside of your legitimate residence you will be arrested for a second degree felony right off the bat which is a more serious crime than the robbery or assault that you were defending yourself from in the first place. The cops will be more interested in locking you up than the person you are defending yourself from.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

[woodentoe 14]

The law says "prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" . A lease grants possession. If you possess a property, there is a long process to remove you from it. If someone comes along and says "I own this, you have to leave", you don't possess it.

 

As for a hotel room, again, look at the Revell case. If he was legal to have his pistol in his possession in the hotel room then the question of the applicability of FOPA laws is irrelevant.

I stand corrected.

 

 

Curious. Even though Revel's attempt to sue the PANYNJ and the arresting officer on FOPA, due process and 4th amendment grounds failed, WHY were the charges dismissed against him 4 months after the initial arrest?

[Malsua 1,422]

I stand corrected.

 

 

Curious. Even though Revel's attempt to sue the PANYNJ and the arresting officer on FOPA, due process and 4th amendment grounds failed, WHY were the charges dismissed against him 4 months after the initial arrest?

 

Probably because someone sane got to the prosecutor. They were prosecuting an otherwise innocent man with no criminal intent.

 

The fact remains that the superior court ruled that Revell was not protected under FOPA and dismissed the suit. You only need protection under FOPA if you're doing something illegal that is or should be covered under FOPA.

[BarkNBite 15]

So.......during the summer we rent for 2 weeks at a time with a signed lease by the owner with no exemption for firearms or dogs......in the fall we rent the same location for weekends without a lease but with a check payment for that time.......what would the difference be in legality of possessing on the same property ?

[Malsua 1,422]

So.......during the summer we rent for 2 weeks at a time with a signed lease by the owner with no exemption for firearms or dogs......in the fall we rent the same location for weekends without a lease but with a check payment for that time.......what would the difference be in legality of possessing on the same property ?

 

In this particular instance, you could use the prior leases to show that this is a part time residence during the periods that you rent it. It's a house, you have exclusive use of it for a defined period agreed up front. There is a line from where a hotel room for a night turns into a residence. A Lease clearly defines the line. A rental agreement at a hotel is not as clear, can be open ended and as shown in the Revell case overnight stays in hotels don't count. If you "move in" for a period of time and have contractually agreed to the period, it's clearly a residence. I don't think anyone can argue that stopping off the highway for the night in a hotel qualifies as a residence. Ultimately, it would come down to a court to clarify one way or another and for all of us legal gun owners, we can only hope never to get to that place.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Why is the title of this thread completely different than the question asked by the OP?

 

As for the question about the hotel stay, what is one supposed to do with a handgun when traveling to a class that's 2 or 3 hours away within NJ?

Surely, one could make the case that it's reasonable to stay overnight close to the location of the class. Is it better to bring the cased firearm into the hotel room, or to take a chance on leaving it in the car?

[brocglock23 4]

Why is the title of this thread completely different than the question asked by the OP?

 

As for the question about the hotel stay, what is one supposed to do with a handgun when traveling to a class that's 2 or 3 hours away within NJ?

Surely, one could make the case that it's reasonable to stay overnight close to the location of the class. Is it better to bring the cased firearm into the hotel room, or to take a chance on leaving it in the car?

 

I'm not following. I titled the thread "Traveling with a handgun to a hotel in NJ" b/c my buddy seems to think its legal to take a handgun from his house in NJ to a "semi hotel but I guess could be considered a house" in NJ. I don't see how that is completely different. He is traveling with a handgun to a hotel in NJ. I'm not trying to be rude I'm just seeing where you are coming from.

 

Also there is no class or anything to be taken into account. He simply thinks it's okay to take a handgun from his home and bring it to the shore for the weekend. I don't believe that is allowed in travel laws.

[TheDon 3]

The way I understand it, you cannot construe a hotel as a residence unless it is a long-term arrangement; basically you are using a hotel room as an apartment. Similarly, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince a judge that renting a house for a week at the shore constitutes renting a house as a residence.

 

You are certainly good to go as long as you don't get caught. If you get caught, you could reasonably expect to avoid prison time if you get a good attorney. But you risk losing your 2nd ammendment rights and a good chuck of your retirement savings (good lawyers ain't cheap).

 

My vote would be No.

[kman 56]

Here is an idea and who knows if it would be accepted but you could go to the NJ MVC website beforehand and put in a change of address online. They will mail you a sticker to put on the back of your drivers license that has your new stated address on it. That way if police dispute that your residence is where you are staying for two weeks you can point to your drivers license as proof of residence.

 

But then of course the next question is why didn't you apply in the town of your new residence for a new FOID since you moved? Not to mention potentially getting summoned for jury duty down there.

 

So basically you are in a bind no matter what you do which is as the state intended when enacting these monstrosities. Just bring an unloaded shotgun and save yourself from grief. Your FOID card is all you need to have the shotgun with you in case you need it.

 

Another issue - if you do bring a handgun to the shore, are you bringing hollow point defensive ammo too? One 50 round box is another potential 50 felony counts if you lose your argument in court. Why tempt fate? Legally you can bring as much buckshot shells as you want.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

[Sandy 44]

Why is the title of this thread completely different than the question asked by the OP?

 

As for the question about the hotel stay, what is one supposed to do with a handgun when traveling to a class that's 2 or 3 hours away within NJ?

Surely, one could make the case that it's reasonable to stay overnight close to the location of the class. Is it better to bring the cased firearm into the hotel room, or to take a chance on leaving it in the car?

 

Put them in locking armored luggage and use a big chain and padlock , chain them to an immobile structure in the room and put the key in a strong box in the hotel and hope you don;t get searched or something Only half kidding unfortunately.

 

That is what these NJ gun law stipulations do..make people who care about the law and who are not a threat worry about " what will I do with my guns while I am dutifully attending good training in the interest of being safe and accurate and a responsible gun owner " ...Forcing you to decide between getting up at 5am and driving 6 hours in one day or doing do the mental gymnastics of whether or not it is legal to stay in a hotel room near the training and worrying you are breaking a pointless law.

 

Meanwhile all the criminals in the hotel are packing , carrying , waiting to jack you in the parking garage , and they are not losing a minute's sleep over whether or not they are breaking any "gun laws" in NJ by possessing a gun " at a hotel" .

 

Well played NJ , well played ( eyes rolling) . Sad , isn't it?