Discharge law

[O-gre 7]

That is wrong! I see nothing that states you can not protect your property. It's how you use your weapon that is at issue.

[CMJeepster 2,780]

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

 

Bingo.

[Anselmo 87]

I was talking with Ed from EDS Gun Shop i asked him that not to long ago, he told me that "you cant shoot (discharge) from your house out to your car where the person who is breaking into your stuff". so pretty much yell at them say you have a weapon and that you have called the police.

 

if im wrong please correct me

 

You're both right. You legally can't shoot them from your house for stealing your car. You can go outside and confront them. What happens next is the debatable part.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

 

(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

 

2b is where you they might jam you up depending on your PD, who you are, who you shot, who you are related to, who they are related to, and what the political aspirations of the DA are. NJ law makes a big to do about your "dwelling." Not your property, not your land, your dwelling. I think the prosecutor out to make an example out of you would say, you were OK to arm yourself inside your dwelling and to tell them to stop. Once you went outside, with your firearm, to the driveway to confront and/or stop them from stealing your property, you could have "avoided the necessity of using such [deadly] force with complete safety by... surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto." By using deadly force instead of surrendering your property, you broke the law.

 

Not saying that I agree with it or that a jury wouldn't see it your way, but you'd have to weigh whether or not a car covered by insurance is worth possibly going to jail over.

[O-gre 7]

Yeah, I don't read it that way. That would apply to a bank repossessing a vehicle! NOT someone trying to steal said vehicle. You still don't have a right to pull the trigger until you fear for your life.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Yeah, I don't read it that way. That would apply to a bank repossessing a vehicle! NOT someone trying to steal said vehicle. You still don't have a right to pull the trigger until you fear for your life.

 

Then you'd better hope the DA see's it your way as well, because that is what really matters. If they think you provoked the encounter or could have avoided needing to use deadly force with complete safety by (a) retreating (b) surrendering possession (c ) telling the thief to stop and they comply, they could prosecute.

 

As much as I don't agree with it, I'm not politically connected or rich enough to try and test it out in court.

[O-gre 7]

There is NO debate! You have a right to protect your property and if you feel in danger you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself. If you feel in danger you have NO obligation to retreat. You worry about the DA while 6 carry you away!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

Anyone can assert a claim or right to your property, it doesn't say legal claim or right... if someone tries to steal your car they are claiming it as there own even though it would be illegal. Your home is excluded only because it's written, and still has limitation.

 

The fact is, the guy is probably just there for your car. Do you really want to get into a shoot out over a car? Option a) call the cops and deal with insurance. b) confront the guy and have any number of bad what if's take place including killing a person getting yourself killed and possibly anyone in your house killed or going to jail.... stay in your house locked and loaded keep the family safe defend yourself from a fortified position.... do be a hero over a car... save that for a day you could actually make a difference. Chances are the guy takes off the second he realizes he's been spotted.

[O-gre 7]

(3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

[O-gre 7]

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

Anyone can assert a claim or right to your property, it doesn't say legal claim or right... if someone tries to steal your car they are claiming it as there own even though it would be illegal.

[O-gre 7]

Sorry but that's just absurd! That was put in place for repos! Someone STEALING your shit is NOT claiming a right to your property! To that end I don't ever recall a thief using THAT as a defense.

[O-gre 7]

Besides, no one is suggesting that you fire at someone for stealing you car. You have the gun as a defensive weapon. You ARE allowed to attempt to stop a thief! If in doing so you feel your life is in danger you have a right to protect yourself. That doesn't mean shoot a thief just because!

[Wile E Coyote 0]

There is NO debate! You have a right to protect your property and if you feel in danger you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself. If you feel in danger you have NO obligation to retreat. You worry about the DA while 6 carry you away!

 

I'm not worrying about the DA because I'm arming myself, calling the cops, and yelling at the the POS from inside my house he's got 2 minutes to hot wire the damn thing. What do I care if he steals the car? It's insured and there isn't anything inside besides some gum and my sunglasses. Not worth risking my life. However if he get's frisky and turns around and tries to come my house, he'd better have his affairs in order.

 

Bottom line is in NJ the ways the laws are written, if you shoot someone outside your home you are going to have a rough time

[O-gre 7]

I hear ya but I just don't see anything that states that on your property you can't protect yourself if threatened. I understand the "obligation to retreat" however if you feel you are in immediate danger that goes away.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

I hear ya but I just don't see anything that states that on your property you can't protect yourself if threatened. I understand the "obligation to retreat" however if you feel you are in immediate danger that goes away.

 

Hell will freeze over before NJ get's a FL Stand Your Ground type law, but until then a situation like this will end up in the hands of lawyers. IMHO not something you want to mess around with.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Sorry but that's just absurd! That was put in place for repos! Someone STEALING your shit is NOT claiming a right to your property! To that end I don't ever recall a thief using THAT as a defense.

 

Doesn't matter what it was put in place for, that is what it says, i dont have personal info on why they wrote it that way either. A claim is a claim, the law doesn't elaborate any further.

 

 

Think about what your saying... if someone didnt think they had a right to your property... they wouldn't be stealing it.

 

Also, your really negating how you will look in court when the prosecution attacks you for confronting the individual and putting yourself in the situation to begin with, even though you really didn't instigate it, when you could have simply stayed in your house and called the cops, they will paint you to be some judge jury and executioner.

 

 

Honestly, sometimes it's all about how you word what exactly took place. herd a noise outside, took your gun with you, stumble upon someone stealing your car, IF he attacks you, your in the clear to defend.

 

If you KNOW someone is outside taking your car, as you can see the law will be VERY grey and open to interpretation. believe it or not the court will try and make you look like the aggressor.

[O-gre 7]

Like I stated already. It doesn't matter if they lay claim to your shit or not. If they threaten you OR if you feel in danger you have a right to defend yourself. What's the difference if they lay claim to it or not? You aren't going to shoot someone for stealing your car!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Like I stated already. It doesn't matter if they lay claim to your shit or not. If they threaten you OR if you feel in danger you have a right to defend yourself. What's the difference if they lay claim to it or not? You aren't going to shoot someone for stealing your car!

 

Well the law says you have no right to use deadly force in the protection of yourself under such conditions. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I personally look at it as NJ's way of keeping people from individually fighting over property and collateral damage, welcome to the nanny state.

[SW9racer 262]

Biden says we can defend ourselves with shotguns in our own home, federal trumps state.

[O-gre 7]

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong! While you can't use the weapon to stop them, you CAN use it to protect yourself. What are you saying? Once they say this is "mine" THEY have a right to beat you over the head with a bat? Come on now!

[ruger9 0]

It all comes down to this:

 

If I believe my life (or my families' lives, and that includes my dog) is in danger, INSIDE my home, I will not waste time attempting to comprehend NJ's bs unconstitutional laws. I will fire until the assailant stops (and since I'm a pretty good shot, and using hollowpoints, he'll probably also be dead.) I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. And I'm not being cavalier about it. Any other course of action is foolish and dangerous.

 

The only question is, will my pistol have the 15 or the 10 round mag in it? Waiting on Trenton to find out...

[wooly bugger 1]

Are we really talking about whether or not it's OK to kill a kid for trying to take your car on a joyride?

 

All the legalities aside, insurance will cover your car. It won't cover the nightmares you'll have for the rest of your life with that on your conscience.

[O-gre 7]

Are we really talking about whether or not it's OK to kill a kid for trying to take your car on a joyride?

who the fugg said that????

[wooly bugger 1]

who the fugg said that????

Wasn't the question whether you can shoot someone for stealing your car?

[O-gre 7]

 

Wasn't the question whether you can shoot someone for stealing your car?

No, not at all. The thought was can you use your gun to restrain them. Clear answer is yes. Unless they make a move that threatens you of course you can't just shoot a car thief. Common sense please.

[johnott 5]

What if the "actor" claims that your gun belongs to them?

 

Seriously though, paragraph (2) has some serious flaws in it's wording. The meaning of the term "actor" flip-flops back and forth from "aggressor/criminal" to "defendant/homeowner" in the same sentence. Which is it? Because of this sloppy wording, we are having two debates... one is with the technicality of the written word versus real world actions and solutions. These laws absolutely suck... we have these debates over and over again. Just like we do for "reasonable deviation" or "transporting to an adjoining state", "allowing spouse to handle your firearm" -the list goes on and on.

 

The rules are so crappy we waste a lot of time arguing among ourselves and worrying about whether or not we're following the letter of the law. When in fact, even if we do follow the letter of the law the DA's in this state seem determined to convict you of a crime anyway. If the state wants us to follow these nightmarish laws then they should put them in a manual like they do for the driver's test. Not quoting "lawyer speak", but putting it in plain English.

 

Personally, I think they should do away with all the restrictions period. If they can't do it right then they shouldn't do it at all. We should have a Castle Doctrine, we should have "shall issue" CCW, we should have the right to transport firearms to anyplace we want to, we shouldn't have to go through two FFL dealers to purchase out of state... I mean if the NICS is a national check then I'm already vetted. Why do I have to go through "two" FFL dealers? One should be enough.

 

(I would insert a "peaching to the choir" emoticon but I can't find one.)

[O-gre 7]

I honestly think it was written that way for repo's leaving it open for interpretation so they can do as they will!

[KPAYNE8813 0]

It all comes down to this:

 

If I believe my life (or my families' lives, and that includes my dog) is in danger, INSIDE my home, I will not waste time attempting to comprehend NJ's bs unconstitutional laws. I will fire until the assailant stops (and since I'm a pretty good shot, and using hollowpoints, he'll probably also be dead.) I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. And I'm not being cavalier about it. Any other course of action is foolish and dangerous.

 

The only question is, will my pistol have the 15 or the 10 round mag in it? Waiting on Trenton to find out...

 

 

thought hollowpoints were a big no no for Home defense?

[Wile E Coyote 0]

thought hollowpoints were a big no no for Home defense?

 

2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices - among other things states:

f. Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or (2) any person, other than a collector of firearms or ammunition as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) and has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who knowingly has in his possession any body armor breaching or penetrating ammunition, which means: (a) ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun, and (b) which is comprised of a bullet whose core or jacket, if the jacket is thicker than.025 of an inch, is made of tungsten carbide, or hard bronze, or other material which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale, and © is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. For purposes of this section, a collector may possess not more than three examples of each distinctive variation of the ammunition described above. A distinctive variation includes a different head stamp, composition, design, or color.

 

(2) a. Nothing in subsection f. (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land

 

Legal at your home, illegal on the streets. However, I'm NOT a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.

[KPAYNE8813 0]

oh ok thank you, i forget who i was talking to but they said that you can only use them at shooting ranges.