Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Newtonian

Senate Bill 516

Recommended Posts

This piece of shite bill passed the Senate 31-6 and now goes over to the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee for their consideration.

 

SENATE FAST TRACKING BILL

TO IMPRISON GUN OWNERS

IF MINORS GAIN ACCESS

TO THEIR FIREARMS

  

 

Please Immediately Contact Your State Senators

And Ask Them to Vote "No" or Amend to Exempt Self-Defense

 

 

Late last night, the Senate added S516 to its full voting session this afternoon.  The legislation increases the penalties for firearms owners if a minor gains access to a loaded firearm.  Currently a disorderly persons offense, S516 would increase the penalty to a third degree crime if a fatality results, and a fourth degree crime if bodily injury results.  Third degree crimes carry 3-5 year prison sentences, and fourth degree crimes carry up to 18 months in prison.

 

S516 fails to exempt justifiable self-defense, so if a minor accesses a firearm and uses it to stop an armed intruder, the owner of the firearm will do hard time nevertheless.

 

So called "safe storage" laws are questionable in themselves, and have resulted in severe unintended consequences.  The most notable case is the Carpenter family pitchfork murders in California in 1990.  A crazed madman broke into a home while both parents were away, barricaded the doors, cut the phone lines, and proceeded to brutally murder two young children with a pitch fork in front of their 3 siblings.  The eldest daughter, 14 years old, was trained in using her father's handgun and could have used it to stop the madman, but she could not access the firearm because of California's "safe storage" law. 

 

Firearms storage is not a simple issue and there are no effective "one size fits all" solutions.  New Jersey's existing law, like California's, is poorly crafted, and does not allow discretion for cases like the Carpenter pitchfork murders.  In fact, if the 14-year-old daughter had used her father's handgun to stop the crazed madman, the parents would have gone to prison under S516. 

 

S516 was unexpectedly heard in the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee last Thursday.  A request to hold the bill to discuss it, routinely granted as a courtesy, was denied as the hearing began.  ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach testified in person, and NRA submitted written opposition.  To listen to the hearing, click here, then click "listen" under "Thursday, September 18."  Consideration of the bill starts at the 2:10 mark.  The Senate has now fast-tracked the bill on less than 24 hours notice and moved it to today's full voting session.

Please immediately email every state senator, and call and email your own state senator, and ask them to vote "no" or to amend S516 to exempt justifiable self-defense.

 _______________________________________________________________________

 

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs 

is the official NRA state affiliate in the Garden State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question:  In re: the question about a minor accessing the weapon for HD/SD, I've read the current version of the bill, which includes the following:

 

 

16  b. This section shall not apply:
17 (1) To activities authorized by section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179,
18 (C.2C:58-6.1), concerning the lawful use of a firearm by a minor; or
19 (2) Under circumstances where a minor obtained a firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

 

Is this language not sufficient to protect the HD/SD scenario (i.e. kid is home alone, house is broken into, kid calls parent and parent tells kid  by phone where/how to get gun)...

 

Or, has this language somehow been removed from the version that was voted on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question: In re: the question about a minor accessing the weapon for HD/SD, I've read the current version of the bill, which includes the following:

 

 

Is this language not sufficient to protect the HD/SD scenario (i.e. kid is home alone, house is broken into, kid calls parent and parent tells kid by phone where/how to get gun)...

 

Or, has this language somehow been removed from the version that was voted on?

You would think #18 would also cover it as well. Assuming it was a legal shoot, which I know in NJ is a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think #18 would also cover it as well. Assuming it was a legal shoot, which I know in NJ is a crapshoot.

 

Unfortunately, #18 applies only to what's covered under NJSA: .2C:58-6.1, none of which has to do with "HD/SD."  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this already heading to the Governor's desk?

 

Not yet.  Heading to the Assembly house first, then probably to a conference committee since there is a companion Assembly bill (A1230).  Then for re-votes, then to the Gov's desk.

 

But what is somewhat telling is that this bill seems to have a lot of republican support. The Senate Vote was  31-6.  Thankfully, my senator voted "No!"  :D

To see the vote for this bill, go to this website, enter "S516" for the bill, Click on the red S516 link, and then at the bottom, click on the "roll call" link under "Session Voting."

 

What will be critical will be to see if line #19 survives the conference. Refer to my post above an the line in red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If lawful use is exempted, what is the problem?

 

The language is "questionable."   From my post above,

 

 

 

16  b. This section shall not apply:

17 (1) To activities authorized by section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179,

18 (C.2C:58-6.1), concerning the lawful use of a firearm by a minor; or

19 (2) Under circumstances where a minor obtained a firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

 

I'm not sure how the courts might interpret this last statement.    Still, the bill has "bi-partisan" support and sponsorship.  We'll see. :dontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what line 19 might mean. 

 

But if it exempts legal use I don't see anything wrong with this bill. The problem is how we define that term in this state.

 

The owner should certainly bear responsibility if a nine year old kid takes the gun outside and kills one of his friends. Isn't that one reason we have safes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what line 19 might mean. 

 

But if it exempts legal use I don't see anything wrong with this bill. The problem is how we define that term in this state.

 

The owner should certainly bear responsibility if a nine year old kid takes the gun outside and kills one of his friends. Isn't that one reason we have safes?

 

I don't know either what line 19 means. It all depends on how the courts might interpret it. That is, of course, if the language survives the final revision and is sent to the Gov's desk.

 

The concern would be in a "HD/SD break in" scenario. A kid is "home alone." The house is broken into.  The kid hides and calls their parent(s).  The parent tells them where to find the gun to defend them self (ie. gives combination to the safe, etc.). Kid gets gun and keeps hiding and/or calls 911. BG eventually breaks into wherever the kid is hiding, and kid "neutralizes" the BG.

 

Would this scenario be covered under "line 19?"  :dontknow:   I can see where LE might oppose this, for the obvious reasons.... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know either what line 19 means. It all depends on how the courts might interpret it. That is, of course, if the language survives the final revision and is sent to the Gov's desk.

 

The concern would be in a "HD/SD break in" scenario. A kid is "home alone." The house is broken into.  The kid hides and calls their parent(s).  The parent tells them where to find the gun to defend them self (ie. gives combination to the safe, etc.). Kid gets gun and keeps hiding and/or calls 911. BG eventually breaks into wherever the kid is hiding, and kid "neutralizes" the BG.

 

Would this scenario be covered under "line 19?"  :dontknow:   I can see where LE might oppose this, for the obvious reasons.... <_<

I think I now understand line 19. They should reword "as a result" to "in response to." The way it's written it sounds like it's ok for a home invader to give a minor a gun. But it really means: Guy breaks in, kid grabs gun, etc. You'd think that all lawful purposes would include this automatically.

 

I don't see how they could prosecute for that, even in Atlantic County. 

 

Why would LE oppose it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I now understand line 19. They should reword "as a result" to "in response to." The way it's written it sounds like it's ok for a home invader to give a minor a gun. But it really means: Guy breaks in, kid grabs gun, etc. You'd think that all lawful purposes would include this automatically.

 

I don't see how they could prosecute for that, even in Atlantic County. 

 

Why would LE oppose it? 

 

Puts LEOs more at risk.  If the door is closed (and say the kid either can't get to a phone or isn't able to call 911 because s/he's on the phone with their parent(s)), how does the kid know it's the LEO approaching them vs. the BG? The kid is more likely to fire through the door anyway if they're scared by what they hear, and potentially kill the LEO, thinking they were the BG.  I mean, that could happen anyway, but I'd think a scared kid is more likely to fire.  Maybe that should be a part of training kids (i.e. teaching that particular scenario and how best to respond).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe line 19 is for the scenario where a minor breaks into your house. You had a loaded gun in your nightstand, because there's just adults in your house. The minor takes it and shoots someone.

 

You had your firearm secured behind a locked door; you did not 'allow access'. Then the question I think they will raise in court is 'was that locked door sufficient?'.

 

They're never done in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would the bill apply in this situation. A child gained access and someone was injured!!!

 

 

http://newsok.com/woman-stabbed-man-shot-in-southeast-oklahoma-city-early-wednesday/article/5345087

 

I think the parent would be covered by "line 19" in this case.  The BG "broke in" (an "unlawful entry...")...   Now, what would be interesting is if the BG, perhaps someone the victim or family "knows" and let in voluntarily, suddenly turns on the victim while already "inside..."  Could the kid go get the gun while the parent is being attacked?  Per the current language of the bill. It would seem not..... :shok::dontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...