A visible gun case is probable cause for a search? Only in NJ.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Yet the guy in my old neighborhood robs a house, steals the guns and then gets caught with em in his car and gets 364 days

[ryan_j 0]

This guy was an ex cop... Maybe he should have transported the guns while he was still a police officer. He would have been covered under LEOSA, even the hollow points would have not been a problem.

[illy 1]

As long as they aren't in a loaded gun. HPs are illegal in a carry gun even for LEOs off-duty

[iCARRY 0]

As long as they aren't in a loaded gun. HPs are illegal in a carry gun even for LEOs off-duty

I think you are wrong. LEOs can carry HP OFF-duty

[jrfly3006 42]

I think you are wrong. LEOs can carry HP OFF-duty

Off-duty = Yes... Retired = No

[Soju 153]

Off-duty = Yes... Retired = No

 

Which is quite absurd if you think about it. I mean, arbitrarily defining who can and cannot carry is absurd enough, but how crazy is it that they further define what you can or cannot carry? Today, you can carry those hollowpoints. But after you retire tomorrow, you can still carry, but you must use different ammunition...

[BlueLineFish 615]

Just like most other gun laws it is ridiculous

[jrfly3006 42]

Which is quite absurd if you think about it. I mean, arbitrarily defining who can and cannot carry is absurd enough, but how crazy is it that they further define what you can or cannot carry? Today, you can carry those hollowpoints. But after you retire tomorrow, you can still carry, but you must use different ammunition...

yep.. The logic is more confusing than the formula for cold fusion.. Oh . Wait.. I just used the word logic when referring to gun laws.. My mistake

[imola 0]

it's funny while I was reading this thread, this poped up on slick gun...talk about timing.

 

http://www.slickguns.com/product/gfg-gunslinger-gig-case-guitar-shaped-gun-case

 

[zoid 24]

Off-duty = Yes... Retired = No

 

Because as everyone knows a retired cop will only face retired criminals...

[tony357 386]

Yet the guy in my old neighborhood robs a house, steals the guns and then gets caught with em in his car and gets 364 days

I have a better one yet,  couple knuckle head kids burned a cross along side of the highway... I understand one of them recieved 10 years...

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/three_men_are_charged_in_brurl.html

 

 

EDIT:

I see their are other issues involved not just the cross burning...

 

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/jail-time-for-men-who-pleaded-guilty-to-cross-burning/article_9353c4c0-8b84-548f-90d2-54465432463a.html

[Shawnmoore81 623]

10 friggin years and nobody was hurt or killed. Amazing

[GRIZ 3,369]

Most states? You sure? Not all states are Jersey stupid.

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Carrying a handgun in an unlocked case where the driver has access to it is only illegal in 17 states, maybe a few more, according to the NRA website.  This includes states like PA which require you to have a carry permit to carry it accessible.

 

^This

 

 

"The "plain view discovery of firearm cases on the back seat, and defendant's subsequent admission that he was transporting long arms to Texas" gave the officer probable cause to believe Reininger possessed firearms illegally, the judges wrote."

 

No.

 

It was the gun case(s) only. No one knew he violated FOPA until after the search,

 

It was not only the gun case but the guy's lying that provided the PC.

 

Wait, can anyone explain this to me? Since when is a NJ State Firearms ID Card a license to carry weapons in a car?

 

Nappen said the irony of the case is that had Reininger lived in New Jersey, his background would have allowed him to qualify for a state firearms ID card.

"If he'd had one, he wouldn't have been guilty of this offense," Nappen said. "He didn't have one because he didn't live here. He was in transit and all the guns were lawfully his. So you have a situation where he is, in effect, turned into a criminal by New Jersey's gun laws"

 

Sounds like Nappen was grasping at straws in the defense.  He didn't have an iD card and he wasn't in compliance with FOPA or NJ laws.

 

Although i'm sure they were advised not to hold it against him, I'm sure the jury didn't look favorably on him not showing up for his own trial.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Yet the guy in my old neighborhood robs a house, steals the guns and then gets caught with em in his car and gets 364 days

 

I'm sure the guy in your old neighborhood copped a plea to a lesser or reduced charges. Shawn, I'm sure this guy from TX could have done the same thing but he didn't even show up for his trial.

 

Off-duty = Yes... Retired = No

 

Actually, NJ State Law allows on or off duty NJ LEOs to carry hollowpoints and I believe out of state LEOs can too if on official business.  There is a NJ AG letter that says anyone carrying under LEOSA can not carry hollowpoints.  This letter also states that if you are a retired LEO living in NJ LEOSA doesn't apply to you and you must get a NJ RPO Carry Permit. 

 

LEOSA with the 2013 Amendments allows anyone covered under the act  to carry hollowpoints.  The NJ AG also has no standing to negate Federal law and say you must have the RPO permit even if you meet the requirements of LEOSA.

[Avi 12]

This just shows how far removed N.Jians are from freedom in the rest of the country they dont give guns a second thought they are so part of life like a kitchen knife if you were taking a cake to a birthday party would you put the knife in the trunk? well thats how Texans deal with guns so totally understandable the guys lack of precaution. 

[Cixelsid 1]

Bottom line is this was an illegal search, so any evidence collected is inadmissible.  Hopefully this will go to the supreme court and he will be vindicated.  So now, if any police officer sees your gun case it's immediate grounds for him to search you?

[Dan 177]

Bottom line. This guy is not a hardened violent criminal that was out to cause harm.

 

He was caught up in the typical quagmire of the patchwork of gun control laws , both federal and state. A gun owner today has to be 25% lawyer in order to prevent one's self from being incarcerated.

 

All he needed was some locks on those cases, and FOPA could have been a valid defense.

 

So did he break NJ State law by sleeping in his car with some cased guns... yes. Does that make him a real criminal fit for years in prison, or just a victim of overly-harsh anti-gun laws in our state? That is the question...

[ryan_j 0]

Bottom line is this was an illegal search, so any evidence collected is inadmissible.  Hopefully this will go to the supreme court and he will be vindicated.  So now, if any police officer sees your gun case it's immediate grounds for him to search you?

 

Holy crap it only take 2 pages to realize this. Thanks for keeping it on topic.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Holy crap it only take 2 pages to realize this. Thanks for keeping it on topic.

I don't think he will prevail in an appeal.

 

He was asked if he had any guns. He said no.

 

The cops see gun cases. Now what would a reasonable person believe is in a gun case? A gun perhaps?

 

Does this guy deserve any jail time? I don't think so but the assinine NJ law says so. On the other hand I'm sure this guy could have copped a plea but insisted on going to trial but didn't show up for it. That didn't help him.

[RUTGERS95 890]

no matter what, you have to be pretty dumb to sleep in the car, at a bank, with firearms in the car. 

 

I'm not sure what the cops did or didn't do but shouldn't police seek the search the vehicle if they see a gun case when a guy is sleeping behind a bank? 

[Fred2 367]

<snip>Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

<snip>

 

I keep on trying to figure out he intent of the law here.

 

If the owner of the locked container has the key, who are they trying to keep out?

 

It can't be the owner, he has the key.

[njpilot 671]

Intent is that it is not "easily" accessible.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Doesn't the fact the guy had guns in his car affirm the officers PC? I know it's the chicken and Egg argument... but it re-affirms the officers suspicion was correct. Was his suspicion reasonable in the first place? Well, you would have had to be there to make that determination, or get more facts.... We don't know what this guy told the LEO's or how he was acting or what the "story" was about the cases... The cop may have asked to see the gun cases were empty, which is a pretty simply request not requiring any type of search of the vehicle... It IS reasonable to believe a case which is used to carry firearms, may have a fire arm in it. In NJ firearms are illegal so it is reasonable to believe a crime may be taking place. The burden of proof is on the person under suspicion to prove they fall within the exemptions of the laws.

 

So NO, it is not probable cause for a search, so long as you remove the reasonable suspicion. like handing the officer the case and letting him see it is empty.. If the officer did search the vehicle and came up empty in the passenger compartment... the case's actually were empty, he cannot enter any other compartments with out a warrant.

 

This whole situation is very misleading..... and the fact the officers original assessment of the situation was correct validates his reasonable suspicion. If an LEO pulls you over with a box of Hollow points on your back seat... is it reasonable of him to ask if there are any bullets in it and make sure that either its empty or you fall within the exemptions of transport?