Going to Jail?

[PeteF 1,044]

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/10/trenton_shop_employee_shoots_a.html

 

What do you think?

I'm guessing the victim gets charged with illegal possesion and all kinds of other charges.

 

Since he is an employee, can't carry gun in store, can't even bring gun to store.

I am assuming he doesn't have a carry permit.

 

I'm thinking the good guy gets screwed again.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

http://www.nj.com/me...e_shoots_a.html

 

What do you think?

I'm guessing the victim gets charged with illegal possesion and all kinds of other charges.

 

Since he is an employee, can't carry gun in store, can't even bring gun to store.

I am assuming he doesn't have a carry permit.

 

I'm thinking the good guy gets screwed again.

 

Looks like it was the store owner, cops cleared the gun as legal on the scene. I'm sure NJ.com would have jumped on this if it wasnt the case.

[springfieldxds 0]

Well it says the police were satisfied he owned the gun legally, so im guessing no charges will be brought up

[TheLugNutZ 21]

looks like he was a bad shot but at least he wasnt charged!

[MSaxatilus 1]

That's amazing he wasn't arrested. I'm perplexed.

[Daedalus 19]

http://www.nj.com/me...e_shoots_a.html

 

Since he is an employee, can't carry gun in store, can't even bring gun to store.

I am assuming he doesn't have a carry permit.

 

 

The owner vs. employee question has never been settled in court; there is no pertinent case law. There is Internet lore and "Nappenism", but neither is worth a lot. On the other hand, I am also amazed he wasn't charged.

[Damjan 73]

 

 

The owner vs. employee question has never been settled in court; there is no pertinent case law. There is Internet lore and "Nappenism", but neither is worth a lot. On the other hand, I am also amazed he wasn't charged.

 

I think that this was discussed here at NJGF and there was a link to a case from the early 1970s in NJ where the employee carrying was not upheld because it was not his business and he argued that as a manager/shift boss he had control of the joint

[woodentoe 14]

The owner vs. employee question has never been settled in court; there is no pertinent case law. There is Internet lore and "Nappenism", but neither is worth a lot.

 

This is very true. The law says place of business. If the owner of the establishment affirms permission, common sense says he should be able to carry in the store.

 

The article doesn't say anything about the owner. It refers to the victim as a "worker", but he COULD also be the owner. We just don't know.

 

Furthermore, this guy showed enormous restraint. When the perp demanded money. the vic gave it up. It wasn't until the perp ordered him into the back of the store (presumably to kill him) that he deployed his firearm. Too bad he missed. I'm sure if there were any collateral damage (bystanders hit or dmage to property external to the shop), it would have been reported and there would be more for the news to make of this.

[woodentoe 14]

I think that this was discussed here at NJGF and there was a link to a case from the early 1970s in NJ where the employee carrying was not upheld because it was not his business and he argued that as a manager/shift boss he had control of the joint

 

Let's find a link to that. or the case law. I'd love to read the ruling.

[PeteF 1,044]

The article doesn't say anything about the owner. It refers to the victim as a "worker", but he COULD also be the owner. We just don't know.

 

This is what also got me, the article refers to him as employee / worker, not as owner / proprietor.

[Soju 153]

Let's find a link to that. or the case law. I'd love to read the ruling.

 

http://174.123.24.24...1985&SizeDisp=7

 

It is interesting as it ignores previous case law that it refers to.

 

However, this appears to be a moot point as the guy appears to have obtained the handgun illegally to begin with.

 

So basically, you have case law that says

 

Arguably, since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom, 11 N.J. Misc. 522, 524 (Sup. Ct. 1933).

 

then

 

The bar was not defendant's business. He held no proprietary interest therein. By extending the statutory exception to include a manager, the door is opened to a multiplicity of situations where the term manager might be invoked to sanction possession of a weapon otherwise proscribed..

STATE v. VALENTINE

124 N.J. Super. 425 (1973)

 

So I wouldn't hold much water in case law. Case law will determine how it is interpreted next time...new case law that is.

[woodentoe 14]

However, this appears to be a moot point as the guy appears to have obtained the handgun illegally to begin with.

 

Indeed. Hardly a poster child.

 

And, this scenario....indulge me.

 

If I am a business owner who keeps a firearm at my place of business for protection of life and property (legally obtained), is there a law compelling me to keep that firearm under lock and key when I am not present in my place of business? There is a law against keeping a loaded firearm in reach of a child, but not against keeping it from reach of an employee. In the event that a crime occurs, does said firearm now become a weapon of opportunity? Then, the employee is protected by traditional self defense.

 

All of this is provided that the owner legally owns the firearm and "KEEPS" at his place of business a firearm. The firearm doesn't BELONG to the employee. But, their violation of possessing the firearm without a permit to carry is nullified when coupled with a justifiable use of force?

 

Am I stretching?

 

 

If I have a handgun in my home, and a break-in or crime occurs...a guest or family member who DOESN"T live there can still deploy that firearm for legitimate self defense. That exemption extends to my place of business.

[PK90 3,573]

perfectly legal

[Soju 153]

Am I stretching?

 

You are only stretching because this is NJ, and NJ has no such thing as 'traditional self defense' in application. Guns are bad so any use of them in any manner that does, could, or might hurt someone, regardless of circumstance, is usually bad. I don't see why it should be illegal, but there are plenty of things that violate NJ code that I feel the same way about.

 

perfectly legal

 

for the gun and business owner, but who knows about for the employee that uses it. Maybe this incident will tell.

[woodentoe 14]

perfectly legal

 

Interesting.

 

The risk extended out to its extreme, however, is that one must trust their employee with the whole kit and caboodle. For if your employee deploys the firearm illegally or steals it or commits a crime with it, YOUR ass could wind up in a sling...civilly.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

first thing i thought when i saw this topic was, " go directly to jail,do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars"

[woodentoe 14]

You are only stretching because this is NJ, and NJ has no such thing as 'traditional self defense' in application.

 

How can you say this honestly when outside the rubric of hyperbole.

 

2C:3-4 outlines the stipulations for justifiable use of force. Other than a duty to retreat or surrender of possession if possible (which this "worker" did), deadly force is justified if the actor reasonably believes that he is in danger of serious bodily harm or death.

[Sandy 44]

Good for him. If the guy was heading him to the back there is a very good chance he intended to kill him. Glad he is not charged with anything. And will this be all over Yahoo ? Nah .

[Soju 153]

I said it doesn't exist in application. Just like many things that exist on paper, in statutes, codes, and law, that are not applied. In this case, right now, it seems like it may be applied. I hope I am wrong about the statement you have quoted. However to quote what the courts have said...

 

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible

[woodentoe 14]

I said it doesn't exist in application. Just like many things that exist on paper, in statutes, codes, and law, that are not applied. In this case, right now, it seems like it may be applied. I hope I am wrong about the statement you have quoted. However to quote what the courts have said...

 

This also blows my mind:

 

Defendant was tried to a jury and convicted of possession of a revolver, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41 (carrying a weapon on his person or in his possession in a public place without first having obtained a permit to carry the same). He was sentenced to 60 days in the Esesx County Correctional

 

 

This guy was convicted of illegal possession of a STOLEN gun without a permit to carry....and he got 60 days in County lockup. WTF?

[Dan 177]

Edit : sorry someone beat me to this! Missed it in my initial read

 

NJ courts ruled that it must be a business owner of sorts, non-owner employees don't count.

 

NJGF post : http://njgunforums.c...usiness__st__30

 

State v Valentine, 1973

http://nj.findacase....40203.NJ.htm/qx

 

 

 

Arguably, since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom, 11 N.J. Misc. 522, 524 (Sup. Ct. 1933).

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible. The bar was not defendant's business. He held no proprietary interest therein. By extending the statutory exception to include a manager, the door is opened to a multiplicity of situations where the term manager might be invoked to sanction possession of a weapon otherwise proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41. Moreover, there was not a scintilla of evidence produced that the revolver was acquired by Kozlow and in the possession of defendant in connection with the operation of the business. The motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

[PDM 91]

I've been doing some research and so far have found few reported cases involving a firerams conviction under NJ 2C:39-5 (unlawful possession of weapons) where the defendant wasn't also charged with another crime. Not saying that anyone wants to be a test case or that the prosecutor might not try to throw the book at you and it clearly has happened (eg, Aitken), but my impression is that is is rare for an otherwise law abiding citizen to go to prison for possession of a firearm without a carry permit. Public opinion does count for something, and as anti-gun as this state is, I think many chiefs of police/prosecutors/politicians don't want to draw attention to the gun laws by prosecuting otherwise law abiding citizens, particularly after the Aitken debacle.

[O-gre 7]

Are there any recent examples where a owner carrying a legal handgun was charged?

[PDM 91]

I've only looked at Lexis -- reported cases -- so far. Don't know about charges brought. It is of course possible (and perhaps likely) that felony charges of illegal possession outside the home of an otherwise legally owned handgun where no other crime is involved are often plea bargained down to a misdemeanor, in which case there wouldn't be any reported case. This is all conjecture on my part. I'm sure lawyers such as Nappen that routinely defend gun charges could tell you how frequently individuals with clean records and not involved in criminal activity have the book thrown at them for mere possessory offenses.

[Genewarper111 18]

I think one of the most telling thing is that an NJ police sergeant allowed himself to be quoted on NJ.com as saying "It's defending your place". This is an extremely positive statement, and confirms my personal impression that many LEOS are in favour of civilian legal gun ownership and defensive use.

 

happy shooting everyone

G

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I think one of the most telling thing is that an NJ police sergeant allowed himself to be quoted on NJ.com as saying "It's defending your place". This is an extremely positive statement, and confirms my personal impression that many LEOS are in favour of civilian legal gun ownership and defensive use.

 

happy shooting everyone

G

 

that is a bit vague, since "place" means home. not when your in Walmart or at the gas station. Oh, and 15 rounds and a folding stock is unnecessary. He could say that too.