Hollow Point Ammo

[CommonSense 0]

 

 Contrary to what the NJSP  firearms branch and the State Attorney Generals office states  Federal Law via LEOSA trumps state law.   At this point the Attorney Generals office refuses to incorporate the changes made to the original act  originally known as HR 218.

 

Both the RPO web information and the information being given by the NJSP RPO section indicates that no change will be forthcoming, and if you do carry HP's as a retiree you are subject to being arrested.

 

I was also told that even if your agency provides you with the required LEOSA ID you still must obtain a NJ RPO card which is contrary to what the wording  and intent of LEOSA was designed to prevent. i.e. a hodge podge of state and local laws and requirements.

 

The Lt of the  RPO section even told me that state law trumps federal law........ No it does not........ In the absence of federal law the state laws do apply.

 

The below is copied verbatim from the National FOP legal counsel in reference to the HP issue.

 

"However, the Federal law does extend the exemption to allow the carriage of ammunition “not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.” This means that qualified active and retired law enforcement officers may carry ammunition in States which may have prohibited the possession of certain ammunition by persons not actively serving in law enforcement within that State". 

 

Magazine restrictions still apply as the revisions did not cover this area so in the absence of a federal law the state law does apply.

 

 

Hope this is of assistance.

 

"if you do carry HP's as a retiree you are subject to being arrested."

 

Yes, and who wants to be arrested? Is it worth it; even if you're right and they're wrong; and the charges are ultimately dismissed?  I don' t think so. Just carry the most effective non-hollow-point ammo that you can find.

[redwings9 5]

CS  I agree who wants to be the test case,however this does not make it right.

 

This is what is wrong with this state everything is designed to thwart the law abiding citizen. Some might say boo hoo at least you can get an RPO card, true but like everything else in this state it does not make it right.

 

Here we have the king of liberals the president who signed the changes to LEOSA and we have a state attorney general who won't follow the law.

 

Something is really screwed up with inmates running the asylum......... JMOP

[GRIZ 3,369]

Not true.  Read this:   http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html

 

I believe you are referring to Brian Aitken  The gotcha is that he was transporting from one residence to another, which is not one of the narrowly defined exemptions listed in the above link.

I don't think the Aitken issue involved just moving hollowpoints from one home to another. That's what Aitken claimed at one point. I've also read Aitken claimed his new room mate wanted the guns out of the house because he was having a party and that's why they were in the car. The jury never got to decide which is the truth as the judge never instructed the jury on the moving expemption for the firearms.

 

 

Yes they can. GRIZ, wanna help me out here? Something in LEOSA or the state regs was changed to specifically allow retired LEO's to carry HP's.

LEOSA starts out saying, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof...". Notwithstanding in legal terms means no state or local law counts, state laws do not invalidate any provision of LEOSA. It then goes on to say the only exceptions to this opening statement are laws restricting carrying firearms on or in government owned property or buildings. The other exception is private property where the property owner has the right to restrict firearms. That's it. Those are the only state laws that count. Based on this the hollowpoint and magazine capacity laws have no impact on carrying under LEOSA. Federal law trumps state law all the time. Federal law is supreme and it says so in the Constitution.

 

The only test case I know of this is in Sturgis, SD where some off duty, out of state active lEOs shot some guy who was attacking them in a bar. They were not charged with shooting the guy but charged with carrying firearms in a place where alcoholic beverages were served, a violation of SD law. The judge ultimately threw the case out after reading LEOSA and said to the effect, "the State of SD doesn't own any bars so they have no standing to restrict firearms in a private establishment".

 

NJ, NY and maybe some other states restrict carrying hollowpoints. The amendments to LEOSA were designed to address this and other issues. The amended 2013 version of LEOSA says "a firearM' includes, "includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act...". This means hollowpoints are okay for someone carrying under LEOSA. There is really no need for this as "notwithstanding" trumps NJ hollowpoint laws. The magazine capacity issue was not addressed as Obamanocchio might not have signed it if they specifically addressed "high capacity" magazines.

 

Read the NJSP website for the NJ AG's "opinion" on LEOSA. It recognizes LEOSA (the AG really doesn't have a choice in this matter) but restricts them to magazines 15 rounds or under and no hollowpoints. The NJ AG managed to put the other foot in his mouth by saying retired LEOs in NJ MUST get a NJ RPO permit, also contradicting LEOSA. The AG is saying parts of LEOSA don't apply here and he's wrong

 

LEOSA also has been around for what 12-13 years now? How many arrests have you seen of retired or out of state LEOs for hollowpoints or >15 rd magazines? Zero. The AG doesn't want to look like a jackass and set a precedent when such a case gets appealed to a Federal court. Now if an out of state or retired LEO commits a crime with >15 rd mags or hollowpoints LEOSA or any type of carry permit doesn't do crap and he or she will be charged with both.

 

 

I believe they cannot, at least not NJ RPO permit holders (which IIRC is not the same as LEOSA). 

 

NJ RPO, no hollow points. Out of state active or retired LEO or NJ LEO under LEOSA, hollow points OK. 

[/size]

You're trying to mix oil and water here. What if the retired NJ LEO has a RPO permit, and the ID and qual record required under LEOSA?

 

LEOSA is LEOSA and anything NJ says other than state owned buildings and lands doesn't count for crap.

[redwings9 5]

Griz,spot on,shame that it will take test case for the AG to go kicking and screaming to comply.

[PK90 3,573]

[RUTGERS95 890]

ok, for the non lawyer in us, wtf does all this mean?

[GRIZ 3,369]

Griz,spot on,shame that it will take test case for the AG to go kicking and screaming to comply.

 

If you have no arrest you have no test case.  The "opinions", which are not law, gives the AG something to show the gun haters in the state and nothing else.

[ryan_j 0]

If you have no arrest you have no test case. The "opinions", which are not law, gives the AG something to show the gun haters in the state and nothing else.

Yep, no test case so it will take one to clarify this one. Despite Federal law, NJ is still saying no hollow points for retired LEOs and those that I know don't want to be a test case so they carry either ball ammo or polymer tipped ammo.

[CommonSense 0]

Yep, no test case so it will take one to clarify this one. Despite Federal law, NJ is still saying no hollow points for retired LEOs and those that I know don't want to be a test case so they carry either ball ammo or polymer tipped ammo.

And with LEOSA, retired LEOs shouldn't even need a permit; just a department RETIRED photo ID and once yearly qual card!

[ryan_j 0]

And with LEOSA, retired LEOs shouldn't even need a permit; just a department RETIRED photo ID and once yearly qual card!

 

Problem is IIRC that LEOSA is an affirmative defense. It means you can still be arrested first.

 

But it's not like the brotherhood will arrest one of their own, and retired LEOs have been carrying long before LEOSA. Just show your tin and you're good to go. (or so I've been told). 

[CommonSense 0]

Problem is IIRC that LEOSA is an affirmative defense. It means you can still be arrested first.

 

But it's not like the brotherhood will arrest one of their own, and retired LEOs have been carrying long before LEOSA. Just show your tin and you're good to go. (or so I've been told). 

Yes, I've heard the affirmative defense explanation and the "brotherhood" concept is not embraced by everyone. Just pointing out the utter BS!  And of course, it's much worse for people with no prior LEO service.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Problem is IIRC that LEOSA is an affirmative defense. It means you can still be arrested first.

 

But it's not like the brotherhood will arrest one of their own, and retired LEOs have been carrying long before LEOSA. Just show your tin and you're good to go. (or so I've been told).

 

You're using the term affirmative defense incorrectly. An affirmative defense means a different set of facts which show you didn't break the law. Say someone comes up to you on the street and starts punching and kicking you. You try to get away but the guy keeps hitting you. You realize the only way to gey away is fight back. You do so and you and your assailant are arresred for fighting. However a security camera records the event showing you were assaulted, unable to retreat, and were forced to defend yourself. The charges against you are dropped on the grounds of self defense and the complaint against your assailant is changed to assault and battery.

 

LEOSA on the other hand is Federal law period. If you meet the requirements of LEOSA you are legal anywhere in the US period. A state AG issuing "opinions" contrary to Federal law is not only meaningless its unprofessional.

 

No brotherhood involved here. Just a case of LEOs applying the law correctly. As far as retired LEOs carrying illegally prior to the NJ RPO permit or LEOSA I've never encountered or heard of anyone doing it.

[ryan_j 0]

You're using the term affirmative defense incorrectly. An affirmative defense means a different set of facts which show you didn't break the law. Say someone comes up to you on the street and starts punching and kicking you. You try to get away but the guy keeps hitting you. You realize the only way to gey away is fight back. You do so and you and your assailant are arresred for fighting. However a security camera records the event showing you were assaulted, unable to retreat, and were forced to defend yourself. The charges against you are dropped on the grounds of self defense and the complaint against your assailant is changed to assault and battery.

 

LEOSA on the other hand is Federal law period. If you meet the requirements of LEOSA you are legal anywhere in the US period. A state AG issuing "opinions" contrary to Federal law is not only meaningless its unprofessional.

 

No brotherhood involved here. Just a case of LEOs applying the law correctly. As far as retired LEOs carrying illegally prior to the NJ RPO permit or LEOSA I've never encountered or heard of anyone doing it.

 

Sorry GRIZ but you are incorrect. LEOSA creates an affirmative defense. 

 

This from the FBI:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/january2011/off_duty_firearms

 

 

LEOSA does not give qualified officers any special enforcement or arrest authority or immunity. It merely allows them to carry concealed weapons. If these weapons are used, there is no special protection from arrest. Qualified officers may fi nd themselves acting only under the authority of a citizen's arrest or self-defense claim or under authority established by the state.

 

Qualified officers may use LEOSA only as an affirmative defense if prosecuted. An affirmative defense requires that the finder of fact, the judge, must make a determination of whether the person raising the defense is eligible to do so. To be eligible, the judge must have determined that the person raising the defense is, in fact, a qualified officer under LEOSA and was carrying the required identification at the time of the alleged violation. This means that the act will not keep officers from being arrested. However, LEOSA will stand as a defense at a hearing as to the legality of the arrest if the arrestee is, in fact, a qualified officer with the requisite identification.

 

HTH HAND. 

[mipafox 438]

 

I believe hollow points are legal to possess and use for target and home defense, but LEO's and CCW permit holders can't use them for carry ammo.

 

 

 

Honestly most people really don't care about the hollow point ban because so few people have a CCW to be affected by it.

 

Now if you really want to push for something worthwhile, push to make it possible for more people to get a CCW permit. 

 

 

CCW has nothing to do with hollowpoints. If you have them in your car, or have them on your person, or have them at all, it's a crime unless you meet an exception. Even if you've never owned or touched a gun in your life.

[ryan_j 0]

   

 

   

 

CCW has nothing to do with hollowpoints. If you have them in your car, or have them on your person, or have them at all, it's a crime unless you meet an exception. Even if you've never owned or touched a gun in your life.

 

 

I only mention CCW is because it would be a common place where HP ammo would be used in normal American states.

[CommonSense 0]

   

 

   

 

CCW has nothing to do with hollowpoints. If you have them in your car, or have them on your person, or have them at all, it's a crime unless you meet an exception. Even if you've never owned or touched a gun in your life.

mipafox,

 

Very good point! (no pun intended)

[ryan_j 0]

And to make it worse, it's not even the cartridge. If you have a hollow point BULLET you can theoretically get in trouble. I believe someone was arrested for a hollow point bullet on a key chain. Not sure if he was convicted or not. Nappen mentioned it in his book. 

[areacode201 4]

I once had a clerk in a small LGS tell me they usually didn't carry HP ammo "because it's illegal."

[mcbethr 42]

P.S.  I haven't heard any rumors; but the HP prohibition never made any sense to me whatsoever. You have the right to defend yourself and if your possession or carrying of the weapon is legal at that time and place, why should the most effective and safest ammunition be prohibited? Isn't it time for at least this part of the law to be changed?

 

Well, it probably should be changed, but do you want to be the politician that proposes that?

 

I don't know how old you are, but you may not remember this.  Many years ago there was a brand of ammunition called "Black Talon" which was coated with a special kid of polymer that was designed to protect the rifling of the gun.  The bullet was one of the first "hollow points."  

 

In 1993 a guy used these bullets in a shooting spree in a law firm.  The media and the Brady Campaign clung onto the "polymer" and started calling Black Talons "Teflon-Coated Cop Killer Bullets" which were designed to explode and shred into flesh, sending bits of metal through the body.  I am not making this up.

 

So these was widespread outrage that this stuff was being sold to civilians.  Surgeons were afraid that if they were operating on somebody who had been shot with one of these bullets, they may cut their finger on a shard and contract HIV.  In NJ, Governor Florio was proposing the state's first "assault weapons" ban.  You couldn't really ban "Black Talon' ammunition so they just concentrated on the hollow point ban.

 

Now, who wants to be the first politician to bring back the transport of hollow-point ammo.  I'm sure the Star Ledger would dust off the old "Cop Killer Bullet" binder and go to town.

 

Just get some Corbon Pow-er-ball, Federal EFMJ or Hornady Critical Defense.  None of those are considered "hollow point" although they have the same effect.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I guess I'm an Old Fudd.  I still have my .45 ACP loaded with Black Talons, lol!

[Bob2222 317]

Well, it probably should be changed, but do you want to be the politician that proposes that?

 

I don't know how old you are, but you may not remember this.  Many years ago there was a brand of ammunition called "Black Talon" which was coated with a special kid of polymer that was designed to protect the rifling of the gun.  The bullet was one of the first "hollow points."  

 

In 1993 a guy used these bullets in a shooting spree in a law firm.  The media and the Brady Campaign clung onto the "polymer" and started calling Black Talons "Teflon-Coated Cop Killer Bullets" which were designed to explode and shred into flesh, sending bits of metal through the body.  I am not making this up.

 

So these was widespread outrage that this stuff was being sold to civilians.  Surgeons were afraid that if they were operating on somebody who had been shot with one of these bullets, they may cut their finger on a shard and contract HIV.  In NJ, Governor Florio was proposing the state's first "assault weapons" ban.  You couldn't really ban "Black Talon' ammunition so they just concentrated on the hollow point ban.

 

Now, who wants to be the first politician to bring back the transport of hollow-point ammo.  I'm sure the Star Ledger would dust off the old "Cop Killer Bullet" binder and go to town.

 

Just get some Corbon Pow-er-ball, Federal EFMJ or Hornady Critical Defense.  None of those are considered "hollow point" although they have the same effect.

 

Winchester discontinued the Black Talon line completely in 2000. The “Ranger SXT” ammunition sold later by Winchester is very similar to the Black Talon though without the black Lubalox coating on the bullet. Among shooters, a running joke is that SXT stands for “Same eXact Thing", though the official branding is “Supreme eXpansion Technology”.

 

I was also going to suggest something like Pow'RBall, Hornady Critical Defense/Critical Duty or Federal Guard Dog ammunition.  (There's also Hornady's Zombie Max which seems to be identical to the Critical Defense/Critical Duty except for a green polymer tip instead of red ... but do you really want to take the chance of having a prosecutor waving that silly box in front of a jury?)

 

Current polymer-tip/closed tip defense ammunition design advancements have probably resulted in technically non-HP defense ammo that's at least as effective as  older HP designs like the original Winchester's Silvertip. (I have no ballistic references to quote, it's just my guess.)

 

I think New Jersey is the only state that actually went "full-retard" about HPs, although some cities like SF did, too. I have several bricks of 22LR felonies myself -- it's probably not appreciated by the average NJ governor or politician, but a lot of 22LR ammo is HP.

[LorenzoS 100]

I don't think the Aitken issue involved just moving hollowpoints from one home to another. That's what Aitken claimed at one point. I've also read Aitken claimed his new room mate wanted the guns out of the house because he was having a party and that's why they were in the car. The jury never got to decide which is the truth as the judge never instructed the jury on the moving expemption for the firearms. 

At the end of all the appeal process, illegal possession of hollowpoints was the only conviction upheld.  The gotcha here is that although there is an exemption to transport firearms from one residence to another, that exemption is missing from the hollowpoint transport rules.    This surprised many of us who wrongly assumed the hollowpoint transport rules are the same as for firearms.  The lesson is never assume anything, especially the minute details.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken#Appeal

 

 

On March 30, 2012 the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division overturned Brian Aitken's conviction of 'Illegal Possession of Firearms' and acquitted him of the 'Illegal Possession of High Capacity Magazines' charge. The conviction of 'Illegal Possession of Hollow-point Ammunition' was upheld on the basis that the exemptions to the charge do not specifically allow for an individual to transport the ammunition from one house to another while moving.

[CommonSense 0]

"I don't know how old you are, but you may not remember this. Many years ago there was a brand of ammunition called "Black Talon" which was coated with a special kid of polymer that was designed to protect the rifling of the gun. The bullet was one of the first "hollow points."

 

 

I've been enjoying senior discounts for quite some time now, and the Black Talon was far from being one of the first. I don't know how old you are, but I remember Super Vel  ammo from the early 1970's! And I remember NJ's hollow point restriction on the books when I moved to NJ in the early 1980's. Finally, not to sound ungrateful, but I'm very aware of all the ammo options out there; I've been posting just to ask if there's been any activism with regard to this silly ban which unfortunately has got some people into some serious legal trouble.
 

[siderman 1,139]

Well, it probably should be changed, but do you want to be the politician that proposes that?

 

I don't know how old you are, but you may not remember this.  Many years ago there was a brand of ammunition called "Black Talon" which was coated with a special kid of polymer that was designed to protect the rifling of the gun.  The bullet was one of the first "hollow points."  

 

In 1993 a guy used these bullets in a shooting spree in a law firm.  The media and the Brady Campaign clung onto the "polymer" and started calling Black Talons "Teflon-Coated Cop Killer Bullets" which were designed to explode and shred into flesh, sending bits of metal through the body.  I am not making this up.

 

So these was widespread outrage that this stuff was being sold to civilians.  Surgeons were afraid that if they were operating on somebody who had been shot with one of these bullets, they may cut their finger on a shard and contract HIV.  In NJ, Governor Florio was proposing the state's first "assault weapons" ban.  You couldn't really ban "Black Talon' ammunition so they just concentrated on the hollow point ban.

 

Now, who wants to be the first politician to bring back the transport of hollow-point ammo.  I'm sure the Star Ledger would dust off the old "Cop Killer Bullet" binder and go to town.

 

Just get some Corbon Pow-er-ball, Federal EFMJ or Hornady Critical Defense.  None of those are considered "hollow point" although they have the same effect.

 

The Aitken judge would dis-agree. IIRC  he said something like any bullet designed to expand more than normal is a hp. That was  another eye opener in addition to the above refernced non- exemption for hp's when moving

[67gtonut 847]

The good thing about the EFMJ is that from looking at it..... Most would never know...  So if nervous, that would be what I would carry/use

[Tango Charlie 0]

So here's my question about Guard Dog cartridges.. if I were to transport them by car or plane would I somehow be in danger of violating hollow point transport laws?  I know this sounds pretty redundant to ask in light of the posts above.

 

More or less I'm looking for thoughts on airport transport with these.

[CommonSense 0]

x

[areacode201 4]

While we're on the topic of hollow point ammo.  Can anyone explain to me why it is significantly more expensive than FMJ?  

[CommonSense 0]

While we're on the topic of hollow point ammo.  Can anyone explain to me why it is significantly more expensive than FMJ?  

 

1. Extra steps in manufacturing

2. Marketing!

[KpdPipes 388]

I wonder how true it is that you have the right to defend yourself. I see it like this. In your own home you are expected to retreat from a threat until you are in a position that you can no longer do so. That being the case, there is no expectation that you have the right to defend yourself in your own home until it's too late. You have the ability to defend yourself, but that comes with the specter of jail time if you do not comply with what can only be described as a victim mentality. That does not equal the right, it's merely the ability. My well being and the well being of my family should not be a liability, with the potential for a prison sentence simply because some idiot statist political hack thinks I should place my safety and pretty much everything else in their "capable" hands. Until that mind set changes and people are no longer treated as though they need bureaucrats to take care of them, you will not have the right to defend yourself. 

Yeah..No, you do not. you ONLY have to articulate the threat.