Why the restrictions on JHP ammo?

[illy 1]

Duplicate

[GRIZ 3,369]

Alpo, none of the cases,you listed are an arrest for "one holowpoint" only.

 

The Santana case also involved driving on the revoked list which is a MV offense one usually gets arrested for and drugs.

 

Its not clear if the guy from Bethlehem was also charged with the hit and un. Even if I agree with you on that one that makes one case.

 

The doctor pled out to the hollowpoint charge but had been arrested on multiple drug charges.

[illy 1]

Alpo, none of the cases,you listed are an arrest for "one holowpoint" only.

 

The Santana case also involved driving on the revoked list which is a MV offense one usually gets arrested for and drugs.

 

Its not clear if the guy from Bethlehem was also charged with the hit and un. Even if I agree with you on that one that makes one case.

 

The doctor pled out to the hollowpoint charge but had been arrested on multiple drug charges.

 

I guess I misread "add-on" to mean add on to a firearms charge (which is I what I said in my post: arrested for one thing, also charged with HP even though no gun).

 

I'll look-up that case tomorrow at work.

 

As for "one holowpoint" only,I don't see what difference 1 or 10 makes, but I think I can get you a case like that too.

 

More important than these examples though is the "principle" which explains them: local PDs and County Prosecutors aren't giving up arrests/convictions that conform to the letter of the law unless they have to. And so far, it doesn't seem that they do. While the AG's office may not pursue cases like these, County Prosecutors def. will.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Alpo, if you can find a case where someone was arrested only for hollowpoints (no other charge of any kind) you've done better than anyone else. The reason I say one hollowpoint is because that's what everyone says happens. I'll accept any HP ammo charge by itself.

 

Most criminal charges come via the County Prosecutors not the AGs office. There are reasons to charge a suspect with everything. The biggest is it gives a lot of room to plea bargain and avoid a trial. Just like they usually charge DUIs with Reckless Driving Kbased on the fact you were DUI). Plea to the DUI and they'll drop the reckless.

 

This info I related is also at least 10-15 years as Vlad pointed out.

 

[illy 1]

OK, found it. The defendant was literally charged with possession of 1 hollow point and nothing else. The the gun was never found and no DV charge or TRO issued.

This is from the case (identifying info redacted):

 

On XX/XX/2012 Officer XX responded to 123 ANY Street on a report of a subject named ZZ with a gun involved in a domestic dispute. Upon arrival Officer XX approached the residence and could hear a female voice screaming inside. Officer XX approached the front door which was eventually opened by a black female, identified as YY. As Officer XX and Officer XX2 entered the front door a subject known to police as ZZ was lying on the floor behind the door. The officers moved the subject to the middle of the living room floor, handcuffed him and placed him on the couch. Due to the nature of the call the victim and a third occupant of the residence were also taken into custody. ZZ and victim confirmed that they were in a relationship and were involved in a verbal argument but were uncooperative in providing details of the dispute. All parties were asked about the gun and if anyone was in possession of a gun. They all denied seeing a gun or being in possession of a gun. A search of the immediate area was also negative for a gun. Shortly thereafter a witness, AA, arrived on scene and advised that she had placed the call to police. AA advised that approximately thirty minutes prior to the dispute she had observed ZZ playing with a silver handgun.

AA stated she saw ZZ hold the gun in his hand and take the magazine out and rack the slide a couple of times. She further stated that a bullet fell to the ground but she did not know where it went or if ZZ put it back in the gun when he finished showing it off. AA further stated that the third person at the residence helped her break up the fight but did not handle the weapon or have any weapons. At this time the third individual was released and ZZ and victim were transported to headquarters for questioning. A search of ZZ incident to arrest located a .40 caliber hollowpoint bullet in his front pocket. Based on this a search warrant was requested for the residence but no weapon was found as a result of the search. The victim and ZZ both provided statements to police regarding the argument, stating that it was a verbal altercation only. Based on the officers findings ZZ was charged with Possession of Dum-Dum Bullets, 2C:39-3F, 4^th degree and transported to the ANY County Jail, pending bail.

[MonmouthShooter 0]

I am confused. This is found on the NJSP website:

 

http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html

 

According to this, I am allowed to own, keep at home, and transport HP ammo to the range, and use it there. This seems to differ from the opinions in this thread.

 

What the NJSP website DOES NOT say is if I am allowed to use HP ammo in home defense situation.

[Anselmo 87]

I am confused. This is found on the NJSP website:

 

http://www.njsp.org/...ire_hollow.html

 

According to this, I am allowed to own, keep at home, and transport HP ammo to the range, and use it there. This seems to differ from the opinions in this thread.

 

What the NJSP website DOES NOT say is if I am allowed to use HP ammo in home defense situation.

 

If something is not illegal, then it's legal. If you can have HP rounds at home then you can use them at home if need be.

[mipafox 438]

I know the law, in some form, was on the books in the early 80s because I read it with my own eyes at the time. So it predated Black Talons and the made-up concern about surgeons. I think vladtepes' first response in the thread is right on the money.

 

 

When the hollowpoint law was first passed I have personal knowledge that some were charged with only possession of hollowpoints.  These were circumstances where the bad guy had the chance to ditch his gun but not the spare rounds in his pocket.  The AG put out instructions to stop doing this and only use it as an add on charge.  This is the way I've seen it used for over ten years.

 

I have heard the story of someone being arrested for a hollowpoint rolling around the floor of his car or forgotten in their pocket for years.  Please show me proof that this happened (newspaper article, police or court document).  Not "well Joe at the gun shop told me...".  I have heard this "arrested for one hollowpoint only" stuff for years and no one has been able to provide proof of any such arrest occuring.

 

OK, three items here:

 

1. You know people were charged prior to the AG instructions 10-15 years ago.

 

2. You know the AG gave instructions, but refuse to provide evidence, saying it would be unreasonable to expect to find it.

 

3. You say it hasn't happened since, and demand we provide evidence it has.

 

How about you provide evidence of Claim 1 as a tie breaker?

[GRIZ 3,369]

OK, found it. The defendant was literally charged with possession of 1 hollow point and nothing else. The the gun was never found and no DV charge or TRO issued.

This is from the case (identifying info redacted):

 

On XX/XX/2012 Officer XX responded to 123 ANY Street on a report of a subject named ZZ with a gun involved in a domestic dispute. Upon arrival Officer XX approached the residence and could hear a female voice screaming inside. Officer XX approached the front door which was eventually opened by a black female, identified as YY. As Officer XX and Officer XX2 entered the front door a subject known to police as ZZ was lying on the floor behind the door. The officers moved the subject to the middle of the living room floor, handcuffed him and placed him on the couch. Due to the nature of the call the victim and a third occupant of the residence were also taken into custody. ZZ and victim confirmed that they were in a relationship and were involved in a verbal argument but were uncooperative in providing details of the dispute. All parties were asked about the gun and if anyone was in possession of a gun. They all denied seeing a gun or being in possession of a gun. A search of the immediate area was also negative for a gun. Shortly thereafter a witness, AA, arrived on scene and advised that she had placed the call to police. AA advised that approximately thirty minutes prior to the dispute she had observed ZZ playing with a silver handgun.

AA stated she saw ZZ hold the gun in his hand and take the magazine out and rack the slide a couple of times. She further stated that a bullet fell to the ground but she did not know where it went or if ZZ put it back in the gun when he finished showing it off. AA further stated that the third person at the residence helped her break up the fight but did not handle the weapon or have any weapons. At this time the third individual was released and ZZ and victim were transported to headquarters for questioning. A search of ZZ incident to arrest located a .40 caliber hollowpoint bullet in his front pocket. Based on this a search warrant was requested for the residence but no weapon was found as a result of the search. The victim and ZZ both provided statements to police regarding the argument, stating that it was a verbal altercation only. Based on the officers findings ZZ was charged with Possession of Dum-Dum Bullets, 2C:39-3F, 4^th degree and transported to the ANY County Jail, pending bail.

 

Alpo, this has been redacted to the point it looks like a creative writing exercise. Not saying it didn't happen but can't tell by what you've quoted.

 

I know the law, in some form, was on the books in the early 80s because I read it with my own eyes at the time. So it predated Black Talons and the made-up concern about surgeons. I think vladtepes' first response in the thread is right on the money.

 

 

 

 

OK, three items here:

 

1. You know people were charged prior to the AG instructions 10-15 years ago.

 

2. You know the AG gave instructions, but refuse to provide evidence, saying it would be unreasonable to expect to find it.

 

3. You say it hasn't happened since, and demand we provide evidence it has.

 

How about you provide evidence of Claim 1 as a tie breaker?

 

1. Touche! Here's a verifiable case of someone being arrested only for hollowpoints in 2003:

 

http://pqarchiver.nypost.com/nypost/access/344171041.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+5%2C+2003&author=JAMIE+SCHRAM&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=023&desc=RAP+BIG+ARRESTED+AT+NEWARK

 

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=25626

 

The first link is for the abbreviated NY Post Archives search and the second for the full story on another forum. can't get the full story on the archive search unless you're a subscriber. This is the kind of proof I'm asking for.

 

Interesting to note that he was checking a handgun at Newark and only charged with the hollowpoints. Qualify for the tiebreaker?

 

2. I am not refusing to provide evidence. I was a federal LEO working with state and local agencies on a regular basis. I would see them often charge someone when the only thing they had were hollowpoints because they had already disposed of the gun or found during a search warrant. I saw this done many times and when they stopped doing it I asked why. They told me of an AG directive to use it as an add on charge where a fireram is involved.

 

It is unreasonable to ask me to produce evidence as:

 

1. I was a Fed. I did not enforce this law and never made an arrest of a violation.

2. What I relate is what state and local LEOs told me. I saw nor asked for any memo from the

NJ AG. I had no need to acquire full knowledge of this law.

3. I ask for proof because I repeatedly see people post "you'll be arrested for that one

hollowpoint you forgot rolling around in your trunk". There should be 100s of these

arrests if this was true. This rates high among the common myths found on gun forums.

 

I've also said that I agree with Vlad as you could be charged for that one hollowpoint. I never suggested anyone ignore the law. I'm just relating my experience in its application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fslater 62]

I have a related question. Even tho its legal to keep HP's in your home and loaded in a firearm in your home, I keep loaded with so called NJ legal ammo ie Critical Defense. When I first applied for my FID I read the whole NJ firearms statute end to end. Where it talked about HPs it said something to the effect of and dum-dum. I looked up the definition of dum-dum ammo on Wikipedia, "An expanding bullet is a bullet designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound. It is informally known as a Dum-dum or a dumdum bullet.". This said, do the so called NJ legal polymer filled tipped expanding bullets fall into the same catagory as hollow points in the eyes of the "NJ" law/courts?

[GRIZ 3,369]

I have a related question. Even tho its legal to keep HP's in your home and loaded in a firearm in your home, I keep loaded with so called NJ legal ammo ie Critical Defense. When I first applied for my FID I read the whole NJ firearms statute end to end. Where it talked about HPs it said something to the effect of and dum-dum. I looked up the definition of dum-dum ammo on Wikipedia, "An expanding bullet is a bullet designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound. It is informally known as a Dum-dum or a dumdum bullet.". This said, do the so called NJ legal polymer filled tipped expanding bullets fall into the same catagory as hollow points in the eyes of the "NJ" law/courts?

 

There were several polymer tipped hollowpoints that were proclaimed NJ legal as not hollowpoints. Yes they do fit the definition you mentioned but the problem is your assessment is made with reason. There is little reason in NJ firearms law and like the AW law in NJ its all about appearance. Its the same reasoning that says a telescoping stock or flash surpressor makes a rifle more deadly.