Jump to content
Scorpio64

Can Constructive Intent Work Both Ways?

Recommended Posts

Is constructive intent a double edge blade for the state? 

 

The following post is not legal advise. It is rhetorical and intended to encourage discussion of NJ state law.  If you read this post and decide to actually test the law, then you are on your own. And god bless your brave foolish soul.

 

Back when I was building my first MSR, the first time I ran across the concept of constructive intent was with the adjustable stock.  More or less, if I built the lower and pinned the stock before I had any upper parts, the general consensus was that I was gtg because I did not have a functional upper.

 

The second time I was faced with the constructive intent dilemma was when I built my M4gery.  Originally I wanted to go with a 14.5" bbl and a linear comp.  The problem though was that I already had a functional MSR lower and that I could get pinched for constructive intent (be accused of intent to build an SBR) because of that.  So, to keep things simple, legally and mechanically, I went with a 16" bbl instead.

 

Clearly, constructive intent is a web the state has weaved to snag citizens in a legal technicality.

 

We are all pissed that we have to pay a premium for modified compliant 15 rounders and many of us look for ways to save a few bucks by buying the items when we are out of state, making the mods and them bringing the now legal mags home.

 

Now, back to constructive intent.  Theoretically, if a person has a 20, 30 or 40 round magazine shipped to their home, along with limiter/followers, and epoxy or roll pins, then that should also (technically) demonstrate constructive intent. 

 

But, in this case, the so called constructive intent (as implied by possessing all of the parts to assemble a legal NJ compliant magazine)  is to modify a larger than 15 round magazine with the intent to comply with NJ laws.  As long as a person is in possession of all the components to mod the magazines, and the mags do not leave a persons residence until they are modded, there is no actual legal basis for a prosecutor to prove otherwise.

 

If simply possessing all of the components capable of being assembled into a destructive device is enough to arrest and charge a person with constructive intent, then almost every NJ citizen, even tree hugging non gun owners, can be arrested.  To put it simply, anyone who fertilizes their lawn and owns a cell phone can technically be charged with constructive intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is constructive intent a double edge blade for the state? ......

If simply possessing all of the components capable of being assembled into a destructive device is enough to arrest and charge a person with constructive intent, then almost every NJ citizen, even tree hugging non gun owners, can be arrested.  To put it simply, anyone who fertilizes their lawn and owns a cell phone can technically be charged with constructive intent.

And thats the "real" intent. 

 

And no, it does not work the other way to the benefit of the Citizen. In a fair society where everyone, including Gobmmit follows rules, but then such society would never have the such wide net cast to begin with. 

 

Remember, with all these stupid laws, its "Guilty unless proven otherwise",  so the prosecutor just have to show that "you could", not that "you did".  Charging with "you could" only works to the benefit of the prosecutor, never to the benefit of the Citizen. 

 

Assuming everything else is fair, lets take the example:

 

1. Law says non-compliant Model A is illegal to possess

2. Law says possession of tools, parts to convert anything else into Model A is also illegal 

 

If you have Model A and tools, parts to convert that into compliant Model B,  Prosecutor just have to prove you violated Law#1. Thats all it takes.  There is no relief available to you under either of the above laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..............

 

If you have Model A and tools, parts to convert that into compliant Model B,  Prosecutor just have to prove you violated Law#1. Thats all it takes.  There is no relief available to you under either of the above laws. 

 

Now that I've mulled this over a little more.....

 

Let's say I own nothing firearms related, and I intend to build an M4gery using a threaded 14.5" bbl and some sort of muzzle device.   I can order a threaded 14.5" barrel and also order a 1.5"+ muzzle device.  I then attach the muzzle device, pin it and weld it to make it a permanent part of the barrel.  Now I am in possession of a 16" barrel and legally in the clear.  Then build the rest of the carbine.  All good, so I've been told here.

 

If your argument was correct, merely possessing a 14.5" bbl, under ANY circumstance at any time, would mean that anyone in possession of said barrel can be arrested, charged and slam dunk convicted of constructive intent to build an SBR.

 

Let's go one further.  I have a rifle, my grand pappy's SxS shotgun or whatever.  I also own a saw and a lathe.  It could be argued technically that I possess everything necessary to convert a long gun into a NFA SBR or sawed off shotgun.  Do you see where I'm going with this. 

 

Merely possessing the components is not enough to prove intent.  However, the prosecution will use that as their argument.  If the state can use the technical trap in one direction, then why can't the same argument be made in reverse?  Actually, the argument has been successfully used in reverse in the example of the 14.5" bbl.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ In the case of shotgun & saw, IF NJ were to ever prosecute you, your lawyer could (and should) argue that saw is very common item and primary intent of which is NOT cutting down a shotgun. But such argument doesnt fly when it comes to specialized tools and parts. 

 

On the contrary, a gang member and his buddies caught with a shotgun and a saw in the trunk, on the way to do what they typically do "could be " charged with constructive possession. And NJ would be in the right. Sure, their lawyer could argue that the gang is on the way to a lumber yard to earn a living :-).

 

Circumstances and context does matter. 

 

Sure, merely possessing the components is not enough. But enough context is good enough to prove intent. 

 

We deviated from your original question little bit.  If possession of A is illegal and you possess A, then you can be charged. You cannot argue you "intended" to convert A into B. You are already in violation at the time you are caught.   On the other hand, State can have the other way, supposedly to cover certain circumstances (gang example). 

 

Lets take another silly (really ridiculous) example. You have the evil adjustable stock. You are working in your garage in pinning it down. Lets say SWAT team descends on your garage at the very second you start to PIN it to length, in the process of making it compliant. Your high priced lawyer could get you a break by arguing your intent to be compliant. 

 

Another, likely example. Lets say your neighbor called, SWAT showed up and found a sawed off shotgun, a lathe & saw, evidence of using the said lathe. And they found perfectly legal shotguns. You bet they are going to add one count of "constructive possession" for each of those to the charge sheet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

 

If your argument was correct, merely possessing a 14.5" bbl, under ANY circumstance at any time, would mean that anyone in possession of said barrel can be arrested, charged and slam dunk convicted of constructive intent to build an SBR.

 

...

To answer that , we have to read this... 

 

----------

2C:39-1w(5) states that an assault firearm is "a part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person 

-----------

Can that 14.5" bbl be "readily assembled" into an assault firearm ? Do you currently have on your or under control of you rest of the necessary parts to assemble such firearm ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me a prosecution based on constructive intent that has won. 

 

When you do, let me know, and THEN it's time to consider if it is a viable base for an affirmative defense. 

 

Translation: Constructive intent is legally, pretty shaky ground to stand on unless your tactic is to come up with an excuse to bankrupt someone by forcing them through the expense of the legal system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the statutes and in "my" interpretation these are not constructive intent scenarios, they are outright possession as outlined in the statute quoted by Jackandjill. My interpretation of constructive intent would be having a lower at your house and knowingly keeping an upper that has a FH and bayo lug at a friends house. You can gain control and access at will constituting constructive intent. Im no lawyer so my interpretation could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The totality of the circumstances can be argued by expert witnesses on both sides.  By then yer ass is already in a courtroom, so you've already LOST...........

 

The "constructive intent" of this thread makes my head hurt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the logic of the law is to catch all by putting the liability on you to prove that there was never an intent to use said parts in an illegal manner. Since you owned the parts you have to prove it wouldn't happen in the future. You have to prove that you would not have committed a crime that hasn't happened yet. Impossible.

Prove you wouldn't have used the barrel in the short condition.

Prove you would have pinned the stock in the future.

Prove you would have eventually installed the blocks in the mags.

It only works against you. No way to work in your favor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew on this:

You can also own a firearm on the NJ banned list if it is just the receiver, as the substantially identical statue only applies to handguns and long guns.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew on this:

You can also own a firearm on the NJ banned list if it is just the receiver, as the substantially identical statue only applies to handguns and long guns.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

Do you have any .30 carbine receivers that don't say M1 on them floating around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what if you have a regular 16" AR15 and a NJ legal AR15 pistol? The prosecutor can argue that you "intended" to take the pistol upper and put it on the rifle lower and have an SBR. So how would that work in NJ?

It doesn't, in NJ.  Or hope NJ doesn't come after you "because no one else was arrested for something like that before", which is not a sound legal strategy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what if you have a regular 16" AR15 and a NJ legal AR15 pistol? The prosecutor can argue that you "intended" to take the pistol upper and put it on the rifle lower and have an SBR. So how would that work in NJ?

 

And this exact reason is why I started another thread a couple months back on ways to permanently attach an upper for a AR pistol onto it's pistol lower. There were a couple people telling me I was being paranoid and it was unnecessary. Easy for one to say when it's not their ass on the line. I don't trust this state at all. If I was to ever get pulled over and searched, I want there to be NO questions on my intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys really need to move so crap like this won't keep you up at night.

It doesn't keep me up at night, i have no intention of getting an AR pistol. I was just thinking of other situations were NJ can find a way to screw us over. But you are right, I do need to move out of this state for many reasons, including this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PK90, you have me confused and intrigued.

 

What is a .30 carbine receiver that is NOT either a handgun or long gun?

 

Receivers/Frames are not handguns or long guns until they are built as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has the answer.....

 

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
  • Like 3

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...