Jump to content
John Willett

Questions for NJSP Firearms Investigation Unit at NJ SAFE Conference

Recommended Posts

Taking a guest to and from my range.....if they meet me at my house and I go directly to and from the range, must they have a NJFID to be in the car with me....?

Is there any more info you care to share with us in regards to this question?  

 

If your Guest comes w/o any gun Toyz of his/her own, you could drive the Pope directly to and from your Range from your dwelling, place of business you OWN, OR...."other land owned or possessed by you".  A neighbor, a relative, a bunch or Eagle Scouts, or any other Guest needn't be a "yellow card" Holder to qualify as a rider in your vehicle loaded with guns and EXPLOSIVES, LOL!

 

IF your over 21 yr old Guest brings a hand gun to YOUR HOUSE so you can drive him/her in your vehicle, your Guest is in technical violation of the "DIRECTLY to and From Rules" and therefore guilty of the High Crime of wishing to "go Green and save gas"...........whether or not this guilty Guest has a yellow card in their pocket is of little consequence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to the comment above by Smokin .50...  I've been curious, on the issue transporting firearms to and from a range, does anyone here know the specific legal definition of "land owned or possessed"?...and is that a static definition (or something that gets re-interpreted/shaped as case law evolves?)  

 

Here's why... I'm wondering if it's technically legal to:

  • transport a firearm from my own house (point A)...
  • head east to my relative's house (point B)...[fyi, his house is in a family trust of which I'm the trustee]. I would be there several hours (because I regularly work from his place several times a week)... 
  • then, at the end of business hours, I would put the firearm back in my car and go further east to a range (point C), shoot a couple of hours and then...
  • drive directly from the range back to my house (point A).

FYI, doing the trip that way would save me a ridiculous amount of miles not to mention some hellish rush hour traffic (headed in the wrong direction). So, does my legal status as trustee legally count as "owning or possessing" my relative's property (the Point B deviation)? If you think so... and have a specific online source, kindly point me to it so I can read it for myself. Thx so much!

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to the comment above by Smokin .50...  I've been curious, on the issue transporting firearms to and from a range, does anyone here know the specific legal definition of "land owned or possessed"?...and is that a static definition (or something that gets re-interpreted/shaped as case law evolves?)  

 

Here's why... I'm wondering if it's technically legal to:

  • transport a firearm from my own house (point A)...
  • head east to my relative's house (point B)...[fyi, his house is in a family trust of which I'm the trustee]. I would be there several hours (because I regularly work from his place several times a week)... 
  • then, at the end of business hours, I would put the firearm back in my car and go further east to a range (point C), shoot a couple of hours and then...
  • drive directly from the range back to my house (point A).

FYI, doing the trip that way would save me a ridiculous amount of miles not to mention some hellish rush hour traffic (headed in the wrong direction). So, does my legal status as trustee legally count as "owning or possessing" my relative's property (the Point B deviation)? If you think so... and have a specific online source, kindly point me to it so I can read it for myself. Thx so much!

...

 

 

This is a very interesting question, and I am curious, too. I think there's an argument to be made, but, like most of this stuff, it'll come down to what a judge thinks. I have a similar situation with respect to my "place of business:" it's a family business, of which I own about 15% outright and am a trustee for a trust that owns most of the rest. I would argue that between those two facts, it is constructively "owned" by me, and therefore I could take a firearm there, but again, who knows? Another wrinkle is that the parking lot has spaces reserved for the individual businesses in the building. I have been wondering whether the reserved parking space itself constitutes land "possessed or controlled" (in this case through a lease) by me and that if therefore keeping a handgun in the trunk while parked there would pass muster. Anyway, the State Police won't have an opinion on any of this, but would rather, I suspect, "arrest 'em all and let the judge sort 'em out." Just interesting questions to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Related to the comment above by Smokin .50...  I've been curious, on the issue transporting firearms to and from a range, does anyone here know the specific legal definition of "land owned or possessed"?...and is that a static definition (or something that gets re-interpreted/shaped as case law evolves?)  

 

Here's why... I'm wondering if it's technically legal to:

  • transport a firearm from my own house (point A)...
  • head east to my relative's house (point B)...[fyi, his house is in a family trust of which I'm the trustee]. I would be there several hours (because I regularly work from his place several times a week)... 
  • then, at the end of business hours, I would put the firearm back in my car and go further east to a range (point C), shoot a couple of hours and then...
  • drive directly from the range back to my house (point A).
FYI, doing the trip that way would save me a ridiculous amount of miles not to mention some hellish rush hour traffic (headed in the wrong direction). So, does my legal status as trustee legally count as "owning or possessing" my relative's property (the Point B deviation)? If you think so... and have a specific online source, kindly point me to it so I can read it for myself. Thx so much!

...

Look at it this way. What is the worst possible answer you can come up with? There it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very new to all this, but from the little I've seen so far, Mipafox, your cynicism seems spot-on. A sad state of affairs. Laws should not be so gray (nor so onerous) that law-abiding people with legally-purchased property (and without an ounce of criminal intent) are left feeling LEERY, for instance, about a simple traffic stop. Never in my LIFE have I ever felt worried about dealing with a cop. EVER. For god's sake, I don't even take the "free" pens from the bank, lol. And I have cops in my own family! And yet, I would be one unhappy camper if I got pulled over with a gun in the car in this state.

 

Because frankly, it's not just the laws that are onerous... in some of these more publicized cases (like that young mom from Philly who got picked up in Atlantic City)  the COP involved set things in motion by a failure to exercise some common sense judgement/discretion. That's my sense anyway. Why on EARTH would you arrest someone who clearly had NO criminal intent? I mean, it was a traffic stop... and she freely offered up the fact that she had the gun in the car! He should have checked for a warrant, and finding none, looked at her carry permit, explained the law, impressed upon her what a close call it was (make her stow it in the trunk even)... and then he should have sent the nice lady on her way with a warning! Instead, he was a ticket-writing robot (or worse yet, a bully?) and as a result, her life was turned upside down, she was thrown in jail, had to hire a lawyer, etc. What a miscarriage of justice. And as bad as the prosecutor was in that case, I think it was the cop that actually set the dominos in motion (and that's usually what happens). I believe most cops are decent people in an increasingly thankless job... but cases like that one do NOT help their reputation overall.

 

In fact, I'd love to hear their "take" on some of these more egregious cases...her, the security guard/college student, the older guy who had the antique gun, Carol Bowne... I don't remember all of their names off-hand, but some of you are no doubt more familiar with them. Of course, I doubt they'd comment on the actions of another cop though... thin blue line and all that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for a definitive answer from the NJSP Firearms Investigation Unit.....question was not meant as a joke, have been asked this many times.....unless you are in authority of some kind then this is only your opinion.......thanks anyway.

OK, take a deep breath.  I "get" that you want the NJSP to answer your question, but please consider this:  I was just giving you what the law says verbatim.  I didn't interpret it as a joke.  I do sometimes lend a lighthearted approach to some of this dry material, so please forgive me for that.  Your question was somewhat vague since it was asking about whether or not a range guest needs to be a NJFPID Card holder in order to ride with you (presumably in your automobile, pick-up, etc.).  Considering the fact that you can bring a Minor (after they park their bicycle or get off the public bus) in your vehicle (like I have too many times to count) while transporting firearms and explosives to the range, and since said Minor can't possibly qualify to be a NJFPID Card holder (due to being under 18 years old), I think your question was answered.  

 

Put it another way, if it wasn't legal for Minors to ride in vehicles with firearms present, every Eagle Scout with a shotgun or rifle Merit Badge would be put into JuVee and the adult Scout Leader volunteers that trained them and test them would all get LOCKED-UP. 

 

I then explained the "Directly To and From" Rule as it applies to hand guns (and long guns when the owner of said long guns is NOT a NJFPID Card holder) so as to fully inform the readership here of the current laws that affect firearms transportation.  I won't bore you with my experience level, certifications and background, but yeah most here consider me "an authority of some kind", lol!

 

Anyway, I'm just trying to help.  Have a nice day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the NJSP's own website:  http://njsp.org/firearms/laws.shtml

 

 


The New Jersey State Police is not authorized to provide legal advice to private parties.

For informational purposes only, New Jersey firearm laws and procedures may be derived from state and federal statutes, state and federal administrative codes, New Jersey Attorney General guidelines and case law. Please note that this information and these references may not be exhaustive in addressing your issue.

 

Because the New Jersey State Police is not authorized to provide legal advice to private parties, you may wish to consult with independent legal counsel or conduct your own research.

 

So any answer they give, take with a grain of salt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very new to all this, but from the little I've seen so far, Mipafox, your cynicism seems spot-on. A sad state of affairs. Laws should not be so gray (nor so onerous) that law-abiding people with legally-purchased property (and without an ounce of criminal intent) are left feeling LEERY, for instance, about a simple traffic stop. Never in my LIFE have I ever felt worried about dealing with a cop. EVER. For god's sake, I don't even take the "free" pens from the bank, lol. And I have cops in my own family! And yet, I would be one unhappy camper if I got pulled over with a gun in the car in this state.

 

Because frankly, it's not just the laws that are onerous... in some of these more publicized cases (like that young mom from Philly who got picked up in Atlantic City)  the COP involved set things in motion by a failure to exercise some common sense judgement/discretion. That's my sense anyway. Why on EARTH would you arrest someone who clearly had NO criminal intent? I mean, it was a traffic stop... and she freely offered up the fact that she had the gun in the car! He should have checked for a warrant, and finding none, looked at her carry permit, explained the law, impressed upon her what a close call it was (make her stow it in the trunk even)... and then he should have sent the nice lady on her way with a warning! Instead, he was a ticket-writing robot (or worse yet, a bully?) and as a result, her life was turned upside down, she was thrown in jail, had to hire a lawyer, etc. What a miscarriage of justice. And as bad as the prosecutor was in that case, I think it was the cop that actually set the dominos in motion (and that's usually what happens). I believe most cops are decent people in an increasingly thankless job... but cases like that one do NOT help their reputation overall.

 

One of the major reasons for police not giving "breaks" is something the public (gun people and anti-gun people alike) has asked for. That is police use of audio and video recordings to verify what was said and done.

 

Shaneen Allen was pulled over for an unsafe lane change. How unsafe? Only her and the trooper know. Without knowing the details do you still think it fair to call the trooper a "ticket writing robot"?

 

Say the trooper did what you suggested and let her go. If the audio or video recording was later reviewed he would at least be subject to disciplinary action. If he were a probationary trooper he most likely would have been fired.

 

Everyone got all those recordings by police of encounters with the public. No breaks is the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.....thanks again for that but yes, I'd like a definitive answer from the NJSP as stated by the OP unless your prepared to pay for legal defense should it be required.....again, only your opinion.

 

 Quote; "I won't bore you with my experience level, certifications and background, but yeah most here consider me "an authority of some kind", lol!"

 

An authority on what........certifications......are you LE or a Lawyer ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the major reasons for police not giving "breaks" is something the public (gun people and anti-gun people alike) has asked for. That is police use of audio and video recordings to verify what was said and done.

 

Shaneen Allen was pulled over for an unsafe lane change. How unsafe? Only her and the trooper know. Without knowing the details do you still think it fair to call the trooper a "ticket writing robot"?

 

Say the trooper did what you suggested and let her go. If the audio or video recording was later reviewed he would at least be subject to disciplinary action. If he were a probationary trooper he most likely would have been fired.

 

Everyone got all those recordings by police of encounters with the public. No breaks is the result.

 

Hmmm.. are you a former/current cop? Granted, my dashed off reply had a rude tone to it. And for that...I do apologize. For the most part, I think police work is a thankless job with a lot of armchair generals (myself included, I guess!) weighing in... and I'm sure that gets "old" real quick. LOL.

 

That said, regarding Shaneen Allen specifically, I always assumed (fairly or not) that in a state with a media so hostile to gun owners, that if there was some damning evidence about Shaneen's actions that night, it would have leaked out LONG ago. As far as I know, she was pulled over for a traffic infraction, had a valid PA carry permit, was unaware there were no reciprocity, and voluntarily TOLD the officer she had a gun. If all that is indeed true, I still maintain her ending up in jail was waaaay over the top... and better judgement should have been exercised long before it reached that point. We can only judge on the published/known facts, true?  

 

Every part of the criminal justice system wields great power - cops, prosecutors, governor's office - if you're saying that at times there's NO ROOM. for the exercise of judgement by cops, who are the first link in that chain... well then, the problem is even bigger than I thought... and we can expect many many more cases like that one. Regardless, I didn't fully appreciate the issue of video cams as a double-edged sword though. Good insight - and food for thought. Now... kindly unruffle your feathers! Debate is a good thing.  :girlsmile: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking with the OPs purpose...... The NJSP could be asked ..."What issue are they addressing with this amendment and what brought about the change and how will their change resolve the issue they better than any other solution such as making this a 'Shall Issue' state??????"

 

In other words, get them to state in a public forum why "Shall Issue" is a problem for them.

 

By forcing that issue into the discussion, it could lead to statements that would ultimately be helpful.  ...Could...  I think it's worth a shot.

 

Text from the linked doc.  It seems to me that this may have be a reaction to events such as the murder of Carol Bowne.  I'm just guessing, but why else would they add specific conditions to the nebulous "justifiable" condition? 

 

What could follow is a discussion about how the vast majority of people who are violently attacked or murdered in this state were not previously threatened by the attacker.  By addressing only specific cases, the NJSP abandons the citizens of NJ that face the danger of violent acts daily and assigns zero value to their lives by the NJSP as they are told they have no right to protect their own life.  Hence, their life is worthless in the eyes of the NJSP.

 

Kevin125, If you are interested in the background to the proposed changes regarding "justifiable need" it was related to a report commissioned by the Govenor.   I actually have two podcast episodes devoted to exploring its expected impact.  One with Scott Bach immediately after the report was released and another, in more detail with Dan Schmutter  a week later.  URLs below

 

http://www.beararmsshow.com/nj-governor-issues-report-on-gun-laws-scott-bachs-analysis/ 

http://www.beararmsshow.com/daniel-schmutter-dives-deep-into-justifiable-need/

 

From the NJSP's own website:  http://njsp.org/firearms/laws.shtml

 

 

 

So any answer they give, take with a grain of salt.

 

The questions will likely be formulated so as not to be asking for legal advice.  The concept is to stay along the lines of inquiring about their role in various processes, the guidance they issue officers, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.. are you a former/current cop? Granted, my dashed off reply had a rude tone to it. And for that...I do apologize. For the most part, I think police work is a thankless job with a lot of armchair generals (myself included, I guess!) weighing in... and I'm sure that gets "old" real quick. LOL.

 

That said, regarding Shaneen Allen specifically, I always assumed (fairly or not) that in a state with a media so hostile to gun owners, that if there was some damning evidence about Shaneen's actions that night, it would have leaked out LONG ago. As far as I know, she was pulled over for a traffic infraction, had a valid PA carry permit, was unaware there were no reciprocity, and voluntarily TOLD the officer she had a gun. If all that is indeed true, I still maintain her ending up in jail was waaaay over the top... and better judgement should have been exercised long before it reached that point. We can only judge on the published/known facts, true?

 

Every part of the criminal justice system wields great power - cops, prosecutors, governor's office - if you're saying that at times there's NO ROOM. for the exercise of judgement by cops, who are the first link in that chain... well then, the problem is even bigger than I thought... and we can expect many many more cases like that one. Regardless, I didn't fully appreciate the issue of video cams as a double-edged sword though. Good insight - and food for thought. Now... kindly unruffle your feathers! Debate is a good thing. :girlsmile:

I'm all for police being able to use their discretion on certain matters but the fact is the times have changed and they have to cober their ass so they don't get sued as much. Perfect example, a person I went to highschool with was driving home from the bar drunk. He was pulled over and admitted to the cop that he had been drinking and was probably over the legal limit. The cop told him that he would fallow him home, (this often happened back in the day according to most older guys I know). Later that night the dumbass decided he needed cigarettes so he hopped behind the wheel again. Crashed and killed one person and paralyzed another. The family of the victims somehow found out that the cop let him go earlier and sued the crap.out of the town and won big time. My point is times are different now and the town and it's officers have to cover their ass at all times from situations just like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin125, If you are interested in the background to the proposed changes regarding "justifiable need" it was related to a report commissioned by the Govenor.   I actually have two podcast episodes devoted to exploring its expected impact.  One with Scott Bach immediately after the report was released and another, in more detail with Dan Schmutter  a week later.  URLs below

 

http://www.beararmsshow.com/nj-governor-issues-report-on-gun-laws-scott-bachs-analysis/ 

http://www.beararmsshow.com/daniel-schmutter-dives-deep-into-justifiable-need/

 

 

John, thanks very much.  I'll listen to those.  And thanks for working on this specific issue and the conference in general.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.....thanks again for that but yes, I'd like a definitive answer from the NJSP as stated by the OP unless your prepared to pay for legal defense should it be required.....again, only your opinion.

 

Quote; "I won't bore you with my experience level, certifications and background, but yeah most here consider me "an authority of some kind", lol!"

 

An authority on what........certifications......are you LE or a Lawyer ?

The problem is that the answer your going to get from the NJSP is exactly what your going to get here, an opinion. Each officer will decide if he is going to arrest you or not and a court will figure out if you broke the law... asking the NJSPFU what they think is irrelevant, as they have already provided misinformation on their site. No offense to LE, but many of them probably have less grasp on the firearms laws then the people on this forum. Based on your tone, the only person who will provide you with a good enough answer will be a paid attorney.

 

You asked a vague question that can be answered rather easily. You didn't even mention who is the person of interest in your question, you or your friend? Either case, you can drive yourself and a friend to the range with guns, provided for him it is not an unreasonable deviation stopping at your place to carpool if he brings his own guns.

 

a better question would be to provide the law you are uncertain applies to this situation. Because as it stand you don't even need an FPID to bring your own guns, where does a passenger fit into any of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...........so your saying there is no definitive answer unless a judges delivers it from behind the bench.....great.....$$$$$$.

I mean, that's how every law is... its always open to interpretation which is why we pay lawyers to fight cases... which is also why case law is the most powerful tool in understanding laws.

 

Most of NJ's laws are not exactly the hardest to read, they're just vague in some instances, such as "reasonable". Anyone with a high school diploma can figure out if a law will land you in trouble or not, or at the very least make you aware of the things your risking by doing something. When i'm asked questions about NJ's laws from many people, its apparent to me they never even bothered to read the laws and come up with some wild statements, or connect laws that don't relate. Which is why I almost always ask, What law are you referencing?

 

The loaded magazine one for instances, all the law says is carried unloaded.... yes its vague, no it doesn't mention anything about loaded magazines... yet people still try and apply the constructive intent law(which only applies to parts need to construct a firearm). If your gun is in pieces with a loaded magazine that might actually apply to a loaded gun(very, very weak argument).. however, a firearm already assembled carried empty with a seperate loaded magazine has no bearing on being loaded according to the law. Laws are a thought process and kinda like a flow chart. Expand your understanding to case law, and now we have a circuit court ruling(cali) that a gun is loaded if a single action of the gun places a bullet in the chamber, unless the law states otherwise. The law always takes into consideration what is common knowledge/opinion. How would a reasonable person understand the statements in the law? Which is why definition sections are listed within chapters to clarify if a word encompasses more then what a reasonable person would think. If they don't define unloaded, then it defaults to common knowledge. Lawyer ask:yes or no question" If there are no bullets in the gun, is it not an unloaded gun?"  What does a magazine even have to do with it? i can drop a round right in the chamber and now its loaded in just as many or less actions.

 

Be smart, but don't let these laws make you think you have to do anymore then what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a firearm that's a semi-auto version of an automatic firearm, and any of the firearms on the named list of banned firearms for that matter, make them more "deadly" and therefore illegal that any other firearm that follows the rest of NJ's ridiculous laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, the NJSP are not going to answer questions based on justifications for laws. They didn't make the laws, your questions should be about how they enforce them.

True,

Can they bring an non redacted version of the firearms investigation manual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxpayers have only spent $100,000 plus on the fiopa request thus far.

more likely 2-3 times that. The partial NJ2AS settlement plus all the time NJ State Whoevers spent denying & fighting the OPRA request on our taxpayer funded salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more likely 2-3 times that. The partial NJ2AS settlement plus all the time NJ State Whoevers spent denying & fighting the OPRA request on our taxpayer funded salaries.

So my original question is valid. I mean, who are we protecting here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my original question is valid. I mean, who are we protecting here?

Which question?  Can they bring the non-redacted version?

 

Assume you mean, who are they protecting by keeping it from being non-public.  Good question.  I would say, themselves.  Not sure what purpose that manual has. I'd guess that it describes their tactics for investigating firearms related crimes.  They'll probably say, and maybe already have said, that divulging this info would cripple their ability to investigate these crimes.  I believe the German SS had a similar policy, albeit, more broad.

 

The next question is who provides their oversight on this procedural guide?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which question? Can they bring the non-redacted version?

 

Assume you mean, who are they protecting by keeping it from being non-public. Good question. I would say, themselves. Not sure what purpose that manual has. I'd guess that it describes their tactics for investigating firearms related crimes. They'll probably say, and maybe already have said, that divulging this info would cripple their ability to investigate these crimes. I believe the German SS had a similar policy, albeit, more broad.

 

The next question is who provides their oversight on this procedural guide?

It comes from the top.

Troopers are workers, nuff said. I can't fault them

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...