Hypothetical Home Defense Question

[pjd832 146]

Courtd

Courts have long recognized someone may break a law, moreso a malum prohibitum law, in order to defend themselves or save a life. Was the gun shop owner who handed out ARs to LAPD during the bank robbery shooting charged? Legally no difference than the OP's question. No one is advocating breaking any law simply because of convenience. There is also conflict in the law itself regarding transfer of a firearm and possession of a firearm in your home.

 

If you ask a lawyer in their professional capacity if its legal to do something in a gray area they will always advise you not to do it. Their personal opinion may br 180 degrees from that but they will tell you not to do it.

 

I spent over 30 years as a LEO and am not a lawyer. That said I can't see any way you could be charged as an accessory, aiding or abetting, or conspiracy in discussing this matter. You are not participating in any crime or doing anything material towards its commission.

 

Getting "wifey" (which I find insulting to women) her own FID and guns don't fully solve the problem either. What if she's closer to your gun when the cretins break down the door?

 

Too much overthinking on something that's apparent. That's my take.

while i agree fully with your take being charged for an online opinion and also on overthinking...and if god forbid the situation were to ever arise in my home....while im away ..i hope my wife defends herself as ive trained her to ...rather than try and be certain which pistol/long gun is which in the chaotic moment ........however i definately think there is a difference in the shop owner handing over arms to leos attempting to control an out of control situation .....and a sd shooting in a home by a "civilian"...

[carguy3j 0]

Courtd

Courts have long recognized someone may break a law, moreso a malum prohibitum law, in order to defend themselves or save a life. Was the gun shop owner who handed out ARs to LAPD during the bank robbery shooting charged? Legally no difference than the OP's question. No one is advocating breaking any law simply because of convenience. There is also conflict in the law itself regarding transfer of a firearm and possession of a firearm in your home.

 

If you ask a lawyer in their professional capacity if its legal to do something in a gray area they will always advise you not to do it. Their personal opinion may br 180 degrees from that but they will tell you not to do it.

 

I spent over 30 years as a LEO and am not a lawyer. That said I can't see any way you could be charged as an accessory, aiding or abetting, or conspiracy in discussing this matter. You are not participating in any crime or doing anything material towards its commission.

 

Getting "wifey" (which I find insulting to women) her own FID and guns don't fully solve the problem either. What if she's closer to your gun when the cretins break down the door?

 

Too much overthinking on something that's apparent. That's my take.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said, except for it being no different then that LA bank robbery. HUGE difference. As usual, the police are "special". There are numerous exemptions in laws, including firearms laws, just for them, allowing them to do what would otherwise be a serious crime for us mere mortals. I realize this was in CA, years ago, and not NJ, but the post is about NJ, so I'll frame it in current NJ laws. In that situation, the gun store owner was not charged for several reasons:

 

1.) He was "assisting"/rendering aid to the police in carrying out their lawful duties. I believe this type of action is a specific exemption in most, if not all of the gun law categories in NJ

2.) The police themselves were exempt, because they were acting in their official capacity, in an emergency situation where such actions were reasonably necessary.  

3.) Was the gun store owner actually "asked"? Or was it more of a case of  "you can give or we will take, in the name of a police emergency"? Perhaps he might have even been threatened with being charged with obstruction if he refused?

4.) Even if all the above were not sufficient to prevent prosecution, this was a high profile incident. Charging the guy who apparently played a big part in saving many lives would be a PR nightmare, and political suicide.

One little ole' Nj housewife, in a case that never makes the papers? That might be different. In that case a prosecutor might feel that a conviction is enough of a benefit to his career to risk it.

[GRIZ 3,369]

carguy3j you gave the answer in your #4. The housewife defending herself may not make the papers but the subsequent arrest of her would. While not acting in an official capacity #2 also applies. Emergency situation where actions are reasonably necessary.

 

In response to your #3 the gun store owner was asked. He gave them willingly. It wasn't the reason he did so but he was rewarded by selling those guns as the actual ARs used in the shootout for a substantial monetary reward (good for him).

[vladtepes 1,060]

Hey, here's an angle that hasn't been mentioned.....

 Husband and wife, right? They are married. Assuming that the gun is/was purchased after the marriage, and with joint funds, they BOTH jointly own the gun, just as any other marital property. There is no transfer of ownership, as they both automatically, as an operation of established property law, already jointly own it anyway. If they were to get divorced, then certainly the value of the guns would be factored into any equitable settlement, even if the husband is the only one who has an FPID, and the wife could not then simply assume sole ownership/possession. I'm sure the value would be "deducted" from what he otherwise gets, implying that the wife has a legally recognized/established ownership interest in the firearms to begin with.......

 

Just thinking here. Any lawyers care to comment?

You can not jointly own a firearm in NJ as far as I am aware...

[carguy3j 0]

carguy3j you gave the answer in your #4. The housewife defending herself may not make the papers but the subsequent arrest of her would. While not acting in an official capacity #2 also applies. Emergency situation where actions are reasonably necessary.

 

In response to your #3 the gun store owner was asked. He gave them willingly. It wasn't the reason he did so but he was rewarded by selling those guns as the actual ARs used in the shootout for a substantial monetary reward (good for him).

As I said, I agree with your overall assessment of the HD situation, if it were to occur. I just saw some flaws in the choice of LA incident as a good apples-to-apples comparison, for the reasons previously stated.

 

As for your comments, re: my #4 - I don't know. Depending on where it happened, and how the local community (and local media) feels about it, it may never make the mainstream media. There is a lot of "noise" in the news. It could easily escape widespread scrutiny. I would hope not, but it could.

 

Re: #2, Common sense would say yes, but this is NJ. I thought someone else had mentioned that there may not be a "emergency" exception/exemption on the books in NJ, at least when it comes to firearms, for "civilians" 

 

Re: #3. Yes, I agree, good for him. Again, unfortunately, if this were to happen today, in NJ, he would probably never see his property again, and would be very lucky to get the actual normal retail price for them. "They" would just keep them as evidence. Even if the cops wanted to return them, I'm sure some politician would intervene, and stop them from putting more "assault" rifles on the street, at the howling screaming behest of organizations like those "Morons Demand Something,Blah, Blah".

[carguy3j 0]

You can not jointly own a firearm in NJ as far as I am aware...

 

A corporation can though, right? So, the law does recognize some form of firearms ownership by other then a single natural person. 

Does the law specifically prohibit "joint" ownership, or does it make some sort of clear "notwithstanding any other laws, only one person can own...."?

 

My point being that, regardless of firearms specific laws, firearms are personal property, and if established property/marriage law says ALL post marriage/joint funds purchased is jointly owned, doesn't that "override" any "unwritten"/between the lines firearms interpretation that conflicts that? Obviously, if there is something I missed, where the gun laws specifically say otherwise, then it would be a moot point.

 

If it is a case of one law/set of laws clearly establishing or saying one thing, and another set of laws sort of/kinda maybe vaguely being interpreted to mean the opposite, doesn't the clear, established law take precedence, legally?

[Tunaman 558]

A corporation can though, right? So, the law does recognize some form of firearms ownership by other then a single natural person. 

Does the law specifically prohibit "joint" ownership, or does it make some sort of clear "notwithstanding any other laws, only one person can own...."?

 

My point being that, regardless of firearms specific laws, firearms are personal property, and if established property/marriage law says ALL post marriage/joint funds purchased is jointly owned, doesn't that "override" any "unwritten"/between the lines firearms interpretation that conflicts that? Obviously, if there is something I missed, where the gun laws specifically say otherwise, then it would be a moot point.

 

If it is a case of one law/set of laws clearly establishing or saying one thing, and another set of laws sort of/kinda maybe vaguely being interpreted to mean the opposite, doesn't the clear, established law take precedence, legally?

and it being 1/2 hers already,  she has the same right as you to pick it up.  I would like to think this is how it would work.

[djg0770 481]

If the firearms are in a trust, and you're both trustees, you're good to go as I understand trust law.