Transport - One reason why people don't understand the law

[Kevin125 4,772]

I been moving the last few days from my apartment into a house. I have a few things left at my apartment. A vacuum, roll of paper towels, cleaning spray and a box of hollow points. Moving is not exempt so...

The way I read the law, it doesn't prohibit you from taking the HP ammo from one property to another. Seems reasonable that if you posses it on your "land" as it says is exempt, that you will neither be trapped on that land with your HP ammo nor would it make sense to drop it on the ground if you leave your piece of land to return to your primary place of residence. So therefore, it make sense to me....and maybe only to me...that you can pick up your HP ammo at your apartment that you're leaving and bring it to your house.

 

Someone tell me why I'm wrong. I'm in no way an expert on this stuff.

 

Edit: Smokin .50 (Dave). I think you might be saying what I just said. I have to read your post again.. This is starting to feel like work.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

EXACTLY!

 

Like I've been saying all along, one has to READ the laws with the proper punctuation to obtain the EXACT meaning.  Also, I can't locate any 2C Statutes that ALLOW ME TO BREATHE AIR, so does that therefore infer that breathing air is illegal because it is NOT specifically written into the laws as something WE CAN DO?  What I'm trying to say to you and all here (through this obvious example of critical thinking) is that you have to apply the same standard you just did to all of the NJ gun laws.  "A + B = C" :  A says it's illegal, B is the exemption(s) that cover the legal use, and C is the net TRUTH.

 

Critical thinking TEST:  Take your HP's outta yer gun and replace them with what Cops carry off-duty, then go take your naked, unloaded gun (secured in the trunk of your sedan) to "other land or property owned or possessed by him".  You pull-up to a vacant lot or a wooded lot, retrieve your unloaded, secured sidearm, load it with off-duty ammo and PATROL YOUR PROPERTY checking on the condition/sale-ability/improvements, presence of trespassers, etc.  Legal or not?  What if you have 2, 3, 5 inspections to do, and you drive DIRECTLY to the next one from the last one just visited?  

 

NJ Law is like Chess.  SEE THE WHOLE BOARD!  Laws were written centuries ago giving land owners more rights than mere peasants.  Critical thinking lets us see the trickle-down, hidden exemptions allowed to land owners.......  Have a beach house?  Keep guns there for self-protection?  Of course everybody does it!  Hurricane Sandy proved it!  Cops told folks to transport their guns off the shoreline so they wouldn't come into the hands of looters.  No millionaires with multi-million dollar beach homes were arrested for keeping their gun collection in their Lexus and Mercedes SUV's.  Parked on high ground.  I wonder why that is?  How many residences can a land owner own?  Doesn't say in the firearms laws, does it?  NOW the light bulb is lit and shining brightly!

 

SEE THE WHOLE BOARD!

 

Dave

highlighted part.....unless i'm being overly stupid....which is highly possible........that in itself makes all of nj's firearms......actually, not just firearms, but ALL weapons laws......illegal, because they make them illegal still. that is at odds with the constitution.

[leahcim 680]

The way I read the law, it doesn't prohibit you from taking the HP ammo from one property to another. Seems reasonable that if you posses it on your "land" as it says is exempt, that you will neither be trapped on that land with your HP ammo nor would it make sense to drop it on the ground if you leave your piece of land to return to your primary place of residence. So therefore, it make sense to me....and maybe only to me...that you can pick up your HP ammo at your apartment that you're leaving and bring it to your house.

 

Someone tell me why I'm wrong. I'm in no way an expert on this stuff.

 

Edit: Smokin .50 (Dave). I think you might be saying what I just said. I have to read your post again.. This is starting to feel like work.

This is from the Aitken appellate decision (per curiam II-E-I-ii):

Brian also argues that, using the rule of lenity, we should interpret N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) as including an exception for moving hollow nose bullets between residences, even though it is not included in the statutory language.

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in subsection [(f)](1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land...." In contrast to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e), which concerns exemptions with respect to the possession of weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not contain a specific exemption for possession while moving between residences. Citing the concept of lenity, Brian argues that we should read that exemption into the statute.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120330329

 

I don't think the court cared about what seems reasonable.

While it seems to be an oversight in writing the law, the interpretation by the appellate is that there is no exemption for moving with HP.

Prior to this decision, I would not have worried about going between residences--that would be ridiculous, right?  Now I would drive to the range between the two residences.

[leahcim 680]

After reading the appellate court decision, and Blue Tent Sky, I am much more careful.  As I have said before the odds of running into trouble (traffic stop, search warrant, accident, etc.) are very low, but the consequences are potentially very bad.

And the lessons from Aitken:

Never say anything that could be misconstrued as depressed, despondent, suicidal

Never agree to return to Mt Laurel or any other municipality when you are driving in the middle of a move

Never respond with "I don't think so" when asked if you are transporting weapons

Never ever consent to a search--no matter how they try to coerce you.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

not to be a dick....but wasn't there more to the referenced case than him just getting pulled over out of the blue?

[Kevin125 4,772]

This is from the Aitken appellate decision (per curiam II-E-I-ii):

Brian also argues that, using the rule of lenity, we should interpret N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) as including an exception for moving hollow nose bullets between residences, even though it is not included in the statutory language.

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in subsection [(f)](1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land...." In contrast to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e), which concerns exemptions with respect to the possession of weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not contain a specific exemption for possession while moving between residences. Citing the concept of lenity, Brian argues that we should read that exemption into the statute.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120330329

 

I don't think the court cared about what seems reasonable.

While it seems to be an oversight in writing the law, the interpretation by the appellate is that there is no exemption for moving with HP.

Prior to this decision, I would not have worried about going between residences--that would be ridiculous, right?  Now I would drive to the range between the two residences.

 

You are correct. The court didn't care that moving your HP ammo to your new home is reasonable.  He seems like another activist judge.  The law does not prohibit it. yet, he says it's illegal to move it between residences directly.

 

I think the judge is wrong. It is vague.

 

But, apparently to move HP ammo from home one to home two in this backwards state, you have to stop at the range for the purpose of shooting.  Change your mind, then go to the new home.

 

Makes perfect sense....   <sarc>

 

Glockamole.... stop at the range.  We don't want to have to post a link to State v. Glockamole.

[Kevin125 4,772]

not to be a dick....but wasn't there more to the referenced case than him just getting pulled over out of the blue?

 

Yes.  His mom called the police to say he was suicidal and had guns.  The LEO called Aitken on his cell and convinced him to return home.  Then convinced Aitken to consent to a search of his car.  The rest is history.

 

Never consent to anything.  Even if you think the LEO is gonna give you that speeding ticket for doing 42 in a 35.  Don't consent.  Take the ticket.. Go home.  But in Aitkens case, if he tried to leave, the LEO said he was going to detain him while he got a judge and two shrinks to commit him involuntarily into a psych ward.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

again....not to be a dick.....but what happened that his mother felt the need to make that call? he must've done something to make her feel that need........

[Malsua 1,422]

again....not to be a dick.....but what happened that his mother felt the need to make that call? he must've done something to make her feel that need........

 

Probably said something rash like "Maybe I should just go kill myself!".

 

The big takeaways from Brian Aitken have all been mentioned in this thread, but one.

 

Don't involve the cops in your family squabbles unless there is absolutely no other alternative.  Nothing good ever comes from it.  They aren't there to solve your problems, they exist to arrest and incarcerate people.

[leahcim 680]

again....not to be a dick.....but what happened that his mother felt the need to make that call? he must've done something to make her feel that need........

No worries, good questions.  I know there is more to the case, I was only trying to make the point that, while extremely unlikely, these things can happen.  Be aware and be careful.

According to Aitkens book, he was upset over his ex trying to use their child to mess with him.  He said to his Mom something like I don't even see the point of being here--by which he meant in NJ (having moved back from Colorado), she interpreted "being here" as being on the earth.

 

And yes there was a LOT more to the case than just getting pulled over out of the blue.  For example, at one point the officer returned everything to Aitkens father, told him to secure it in his safe.  That could have been the end of it.  A few minutes later his father returned and said he did not have room in the safe.  I am sure the father must feel pretty bad about ever doing that.

 

My point though is that no matter how remote, I can imagine circumstances where I am searched (auto accident, mistaken identity, etc.) and the consequences in NJ can be devastating.  So when I go to the range I will have everything out of sight (even though I believe that a Ziploc bag on the passenger seat would qualify as a closed and fastened case or a securely tied package), drive careful, and never consent to a search.  Again, these are very unlikely (I have never ever been asked if they could search my car), but I can imagine a scenario where it happens.

 

Keep in mind, this is mostly what Aitken is telling us.  So it is one-sided.  However, a lot of what he says is borne out by the court information (just read the appeals court per curium, it is really disturbing).

[leahcim 680]

Yes.  His mom called the police to say he was suicidal and had guns.  The LEO called Aitken on his cell and convinced him to return home.  Then convinced Aitken to consent to a search of his car.  The rest is history.

 

Never consent to anything.  Even if you think the LEO is gonna give you that speeding ticket for doing 42 in a 35.  Don't consent.  Take the ticket.. Go home.  But in Aitkens case, if he tried to leave, the LEO said he was going to detain him while he got a judge and two shrinks to commit him involuntarily into a psych ward.

The LEO threatened to do that to coerce Aitkens consent.  If Aitkens had refused, I doubt the LEO would have followed through.

[leahcim 680]

You are correct. The court didn't care that moving your HP ammo to your new home is reasonable.  He seems like another activist judge.  The law does not prohibit it. yet, he says it's illegal to move it between residences directly.

 

I think the judge is wrong. It is vague.

 

But, apparently to move HP ammo from home one to home two in this backwards state, you have to stop at the range for the purpose of shooting.  Change your mind, then go to the new home.

 

Makes perfect sense....   <sarc>

 

Glockamole.... stop at the range.  We don't want to have to post a link to State v. Glockamole.

The first judge was total activist, agenda-driven a-hole.  He would not even provide the jury with any information on exemption for moving.  I think I read he was recently passed over for re-appointment.

But even the appeals judge ruled against Aitken on the HP issue.  And he got lucky on the hi-cap issue because they never demonstrated that it could continuously feed more than 15 rounds.

The HP ruling is patently ridiculous though.  However, I do not see anywhere in the law that you have to "stop at the range for the purpose of shooting."  I think you only have to be going to or from the range--for any purpose.  I don't even believe the range would need to be open for business.

[Kevin125 4,772]

It's too bad people involved in a State vs. <person> case can't request a change of venue to... Pennsylvania.    A reading of the charges in a jury trial would leave the jury laughing their collective asses off.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

hhmm......now time for another stupid question. why can't one request a change of venue?

[Kevin125 4,772]

hhmm......now time for another stupid question. why can't one request a change of venue?

 

For a Federal case you can ask to relocate out of state.  A buddy of Donald Trump had a case moved from Ohio to NJ. Fed drug trafficking charges.  Trumps sister was a judge here. 

 

But I don't think you can move a case the State is trying out of the state.

[supranatural 66]

So would transport of HP be lawful possession driving from my home in NJ to my land/property in FL under that law? Seems to me that it is...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[leahcim 680]

So would transport of HP be lawful possession driving from my home in NJ to my land/property in FL under that law? Seems to me that it is...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think so--as a reasonable person would understand the law; but you never know in NJ.

If asked, say that you are going to a range in FL.  Just to be safe ;-)

[1LtCAP 4,264]

when i plan on shooting, i generally load my shit up the night before. i'm going from home to work, so it's from exemption to exemption. i don't worry 'bout getting pulled over, nor do i worry about being involved in a collision. i do though, worry about if i need to stop somewhere when i leave the shop.....and my vehicle gets stolen.

[glockamole 0]

Well I moved some stuff today. I know that when transporting open alcohol bottles they should be in the trunk. Is it sad I felt much more comfortable moving this open alcohol bottle in my back seat than moving a box of 20 hollow points in my trunk by themselves? Yeah that Jonnie Walker Blue was not riding bitch in the trunk. HP now on my fridge in my apartment.

[JohnnyB 4,327]

Well I moved some stuff today. I know that when transporting open alcohol bottles they should be in the trunk. Is it sad I felt much more comfortable moving this open alcohol bottle in my back seat than moving a box of 20 hollow points in my trunk by themselves? Yeah that Jonnie Walker Blue was not riding bitch in the trunk. HP now on my fridge in my apartment.

So, You moved the HP ammo to your new place or is it still in your old place???

[10X 3,306]

So, You moved the HP ammo to your new place or is it still in your old place???

 

 

I'm just paranoid enough to suggest that Glockamole not answer that in a public forum...

[glockamole 0]

So, You moved the HP ammo to your new place or is it still in your old place???

Nope its still in my old apartment. I'm officially out this weekend. Just the Walker Blue made it here safe and its hitting the spot right now.

[maintenanceguy 510]

I'm not doing it.

 

I realize there are risks but I'm not worrying myself over the nuance of the law to the point that I'm scared to do what makes sense.

 

In 30 years of driving, I've been pulled over 3 times and never had anyone request to search.  I suspect I can make it the rest of my life without that happening.

 

I'm not suggesting that I'll carry my AR strapped on my back to Walmart but for me, there is a point where I refuse to curtail common sense any more.

[Kevin125 4,772]

And while we fret over our HP ammo that endangers no one, some drug dealer in Newark is standing on a corner while the police drive by, a pile of illegal aliens are buying stolen identity docs and in Trenton some politicians are taking bribes in exchange for the freedom of the law abiding citizens of this state.

 

Welcome to the Garden State!!

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Looks like I got some Critical Thinkers here now, lol!  Congrats to you all!

 

See the WHOLE BOARD!

[mipafox 438]

 

So would transport of HP be lawful possession driving from my home in NJ to my land/property in FL under that law? Seems to me that it is...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

No. The law is very specific about where you may legally possess HP ammo, and traveling from one property you own to another is not such a place.

[lhrocker 5]

When the exception says that you can transport a rifle to your business, does that mean a business where you are the owner or is it any job where you are an employee?

[WP22 1,558]

Owner.

 

Having reread your question, refer to post#92 for the correct anwser.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/76857-transport-one-reason-why-people-dont-understand-the-law/?p=974614

 

 

[PK90 3,573]

Place of Business = You are the Owner

Place of Employment = Everybody Else

[Smokin .50 1,907]

So would transport of HP be lawful possession driving from my home in NJ to my land/property in FL under that law? Seems to me that it is...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

YES, in point of fact, it IS!  Because now we're talking about INTER-state transport, NOT INTRA-state transportation, so FOPA comes into play here.  Since HP is NOT illegal in Florida, transporting them from a place that's LEGAL (your residence) to another place that's LEGAL is meeting the FOPA guidelines.  I suppose if you wanted to "split hairs", you could stop at any NJ commercial or private club range, any time of the day or night (since nowhere is it stipulated in the 2C NJ Statutes that you have to ENTER the building, so a cruise thru the parking lot is as good "as being there"), and then proceed directly to the border of New Jermany, and then at the instant the border is crossed, you'd be good under FOPA.