When you get pulled over ?

[High Exposure 5,661]

If you are unsure, start driving toward a local PD and pull into their lot for the stop while calling their 10 digit number to advise then of what you are doing and your concerns.

Calling 911 may not work. No guarantee your 911 call will go to the agency with the car trying to stop you.

[GRIZ 3,369]

6 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

Okay, thanks.  I do know that some states must have marked police cars for traffic tickets.

 

4 hours ago, High Exposure said:

 

You said you KNEW some states MUST have marked police cars for traffic tickets and when asked you can't name one.....

You completely made that statement up.

Cmon Ray! Why do you do this to yourself?

 

A quick search showed that Oklahoma requires marked cars for routine traffic enforcement.  Doesn't say you don't have to stop for an unmarked car though.

[Maksim 1,504]

2 hours ago, Walt of Destiny said:

Wanna know what it's like to be a cop...

 

Try that on for size at your job. 

OMFG I LOVE IT!

[Maksim 1,504]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

Okay, first of all you will never be pulled over by the CIA or NSA.  State and local guys can use unmarked cars.  They don't have to be "clear and open".  Some PDs have policies where they don't use unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. That doesn't mean one of their unmarked cars can't stop you for a traffic violation.

FBI, USSS, USMS, HSI, USPIS, IRS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and all Federal investigative agencies all use unmarked cars equipped with lights and sirens.  They don't do traffic enforcement but you have to stop for them.

Some Federal agencies have unique search authority.  CBP, HSI, USBP,  some DEA agents, and any state or local with cross designation as a Customs Officer can search your vehicle or even you without PC if certain conditions are met. Many of these conditions can be met anywhere, even NJ.  When it comes to boats the same applies to commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.

There have been incidents in more rural states where some cretin would put on a red light, make people stop because they thought he was a cop, and rob them. This is not as widespread as some think but it has happened.

War story.  When I worked in AZ in the 70s one night I wanted to stop a car going north from the border   Not for a MV violation.  I'm in plainclothes and an unmarked pickup.  Put on my red light, they keep going. Tap my siren, they keep going.  When I was on a local pd I had drunks that did this for awhile.  This was in the desert.  Literally nothing for over 20 miles in each direction.  This guy kept driving a 55 mph. Didn't try to get away.  I called ahead to the Sheriff's Office for an assist, they sent a marked car south, and after following this guy for 10 miles with my red light on he finally stopped for the marked SO car.  Turned out they didnt do anything.  Old guy and his wife who were afraid they were going to be robbed.  The deputy and I both told them they did the right thing under those circumstances.

Incidents of this type were not unusual when I worked in AZ.

If I am not mistaken, a few incidents like this occured either in the Jersey City/Newark/Elizabeth area when I lived there and or BK.

[Maksim 1,504]

The only time I recall being asked about firearms was in Florida when I was pulled over in a tourist speed trap just south of Amelia Island.  Only reason I was asked, when pulling out my DL, my Florida CCW was right next to it.  

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, Maksim said:

If I am not mistaken, a few incidents like this occured either in the Jersey City/Newark/Elizabeth area when I lived there and or BK.

True, that stuff happens as I said.  Most police will tell you in such a situation you can pull over in a "safe place".  I only skimmed it over but IIRC Oklahoma has it written in the statute a motorist can wait to pull over in a "safe place".

You have to consider the likelihood of something happening.  If you get pulled over and they rob you they will be likely be charged with robbery in NJ. . If they steal your car they will be charged with carjacking.  Someone like HE or Bluelinefish who's much more current on NJ law is more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

When there are cretins out there pulling people over with a red light it's pretty well publicized in the news.  But those stats that occur will be buried in other robberies in NJ.  They will be counted in stats for liquor stores and bodegas that get robbed.  Same with home invasions. No specific statute for that.

Carjacking is different.  NJ has a specific statute for that.  According to NJSP 2015 23rd Annual Carjacking Report  (yeah not that new of a crime) 5 counties (Camden, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, and Union) had 180 of the 186 carjackings in NJ in 2015.  138 of them were in Essex.  Compared to 379 carjackings in 2011 those 5 counties accounted accounted for 364 of them.  Essex had 277 that year.

Most counties had none.  If you stay out of Essex County you cut your odds of being carjacking tremendously.  If you stay out of those 5 counties your chances of being carjacking is nil.

 

[Maksim 1,504]

3 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

True, that stuff happens as I said.  Most police will tell you in such a situation you can pull over in a "safe place".  I only skimmed it over but IIRC Oklahoma has it written in the statute a motorist can wait to pull over in a "safe place".

You have to consider the likelihood of something happening.  If you get pulled over and they rob you they will be likely be charged with robbery in NJ. . If they steal your car they will be charged with carjacking.  Someone like HE or Bluelinefish who's much more current on NJ law is more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

When there are cretins out there pulling people over with a red light it's pretty well publicized in the news.  But those stats that occur will be buried in other robberies in NJ.  They will be counted in stats for liquor stores and bodegas that get robbed.  Same with home invasions. No specific statute for that.

Carjacking is different.  NJ has a specific statute for that.  According to NJSP 2015 23rd Annual Carjacking Report  (yeah not that new of a crime) 5 counties (Camden, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, and Union) had 180 of the 186 carjackings in NJ in 2015.  138 of them were in Essex.  Compared to 379 carjackings in 2011 those 5 counties accounted accounted for 364 of them.  Essex had 277 that year.

Most counties had none.  If you stay out of Essex County you cut your odds of being carjacking tremendously.  If you stay out of those 5 counties your chances of being carjacking is nil.

 

Wonder how many that are not including are getting "car jacked".... but just jacked for your wallet... not actually your car.

[Sig 2]

On 5/23/2017 at 2:17 PM, fishnut said:

Not really, the laws is written in plain English. While I may not agree with them all it's really easy to follow them.

Follow the law and there is no need to be paranoid. 

 

 

On 6/3/2017 at 10:07 AM, The brew guy said:

Unless you have to pee on the way home from the range.

 

20 hours ago, fishnut said:

Ummm bodily functions definitely falls under reasonable deviations. I usually do have to pee on the way home from EFGA.........pops has a decent beer selection 

 

On 5/22/2017 at 1:35 PM, fishnut said:

....

Telling a police officer that you have a gun in your car also would not give them probable cause to search your car unless you were a known prohibited person.

If it is legal for you to own why would it give police officers probable cause to search your vehicle if you have it in your vehicle and tell the truth when asked. 

So much paranoia in this thread!

 

The law being written in 'plain English' does not necessarily make it clear. It often has individuals unsure of the law. The problem is the language in our statutes are written ambiguously. Who determines what a reasonable deviation is? If the cop at the time of a traffic stop does not deem it reasonable then you have a criminal charge on your record, additional financial burden, and various other cascading effects. All these repercussions for a charge that will be ultimately dropped "if you have nothing to worry about." If you find yourself saying "no reasonable person would arrive to that conclusion" then I ask you to review some of our NJ gun laws and explain the reasoning behind some of them pertaining to complaint rifles. I also ask inquiring minds the following: Is it reasonable for a person transporting firearms while moving to another residence in a different state to pull over in an empty parking lot and sleep should they suddenly realize they are posing a danger to others on the road? I invite you to review STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. DUSTIN S. REININGER @ https://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/nj-guns.pdf. There are very interesting points in this case which can spawn off a whole new thread entirely. Evan Nappan claims "The court is essentially saying the plain view of a gun case is a basis for a warrantless search. That means every law-abiding gun owner in New Jersey is subject to warrantless search if they transport their firearms in a gun case." Again I ask, who determines what is reasonable? Is it really "... easy to follow them" as @Fishnut and others describe?

 

It is NOT written in plain English that a bathroom break is a reasonable deviation. It is NOT written in plain English what a 'reasonable deviation' is . It was not clear restrooms were a reasonable deviation UNTIL April 8th 2016 where the NJ Attorney General felt compelled to release "Guidelines regarding reasonable necessary derivations ..." This is a FIVE page guideline to explain a ONE sentence subsection of NJ statute N.J.S.2C:39-6G. It is important to note that this a guideline and not written law. There still is no explicit exemption for bathroom while transporting a firearm (to the best of my knowledge.) There is simply a guideline on how to apply the law. There is cause for paranoia and that's exactly what they want ... create enough ambiguity to make gun ownership burdensome and undesirable ultimately dissuading individuals. It has come to the point where vendors are refusing shipment of firearms to NJ due to any perceived risk/liability.

 

My point is this: Unreasonably restrictive and poorly written  NJ laws cause justified paranoia even for those who put their best foot forward to ensure they are following law when exercising their 2a rights ... or what's left of them. My fear is that more and more states will adopt similar polices and most people don't care because of the whole 'move out of NJ if you want to own a firearm' mentality." This type of mentality allows anti-gun movements to gain strong footholds in CA, NJ, NY, and NH. They will take away 2a rights little by little slowly over time until there's nothing left. Gun ownership is a war of attrition.

[GRIZ 3,369]

7 hours ago, Maksim said:

Wonder how many that are not including are getting "car jacked".... but just jacked for your wallet... not actually your car.

Probably not that many.  If you want to do what people are talking about you need to get a car, a red light, and a gun. A lot of logistics.   Plus you might get run over.

Liquor stores, bodegas, and gas stations are much easier marks.  You know they have cash.  The guy in the Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar probably has a lot of credit cards. 

[Maksim 1,504]

28 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Probably not that many.  If you want to do what people are talking about you need to get a car, a red light, and a gun. A lot of logistics.   Plus you might get run over.

Liquor stores, bodegas, and gas stations are much easier marks.  You know they have cash.  The guy in the Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar probably has a lot of credit cards. 

No one will fight over a cc though, they may over cash? Perhaps I spent too much time in ghettos or "watched" Russian mob movies. Lol , or just know a few folks who have the lights, although they would not rob folks. 

One person I knew from the hood used his ex police crown Vic to pull someone over to get her number, he was not a cop. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, Sig said:

 

 

 

 

The law being written in 'plain English' does not necessarily make it clear. It often has individuals unsure of the law. The problem is the language in our statutes are written ambiguously. Who determines what a reasonable deviation is? If the cop at the time of a traffic stop does not deem it reasonable then you have a criminal charge on your record, additional financial burden, and various other cascading effects. All these repercussions for a charge that will be ultimately dropped "if you have nothing to worry about." If you find yourself saying "no reasonable person would arrive to that conclusion" then I ask you to review some of our NJ gun laws and explain the reasoning behind some of them pertaining to complaint rifles. I also ask inquiring minds the following: Is it reasonable for a person transporting firearms while moving to another residence in a different state to pull over in an empty parking lot and sleep should they suddenly realize they are posing a danger to others on the road? I invite you to review STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. DUSTIN S. REININGER @ https://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/nj-guns.pdf. There are very interesting points in this case which can spawn off a whole new thread entirely. Evan Nappan claims "The court is essentially saying the plain view of a gun case is a basis for a warrantless search. That means every law-abiding gun owner in New Jersey is subject to warrantless search if they transport their firearms in a gun case." Again I ask, who determines what is reasonable? Is it really "... easy to follow them" as @Fishnut and others describe?

 

It is NOT written in plain English that a bathroom break is a reasonable deviation. It is NOT written in plain English what a 'reasonable deviation' is . It was not clear restrooms were a reasonable deviation UNTIL April 8th 2016 where the NJ Attorney General felt compelled to release "Guidelines regarding reasonable necessary derivations ..." This is a FIVE page guideline to explain a ONE sentence subsection of NJ statute N.J.S.2C:39-6G. It is important to note that this a guideline and not written law. There still is no explicit exemption for bathroom while transporting a firearm (to the best of my knowledge.) There is simply a guideline on how to apply the law. There is cause for paranoia and that's exactly what they want ... create enough ambiguity to make gun ownership burdensome and undesirable ultimately dissuading individuals. It has come to the point where vendors are refusing shipment of firearms to NJ due to any perceived risk/liability.

 

My point is this: Unreasonably restrictive and poorly written  NJ laws cause justified paranoia even for those who put their best foot forward to ensure they are following law when exercising their 2a rights ... or what's left of them. My fear is that more and more states will adopt similar polices and most people don't care because of the whole 'move out of NJ if you want to own a firearm' mentality." This type of mentality allows anti-gun movements to gain strong footholds in CA, NJ, NY, and NH. They will take away 2a rights little by little slowly over time until there's nothing left. Gun ownership is a war of attrition.

Reninger is not a good example.  The court ruled the search was okay under the circumstances that were present. Not just plain view of a gun case.

Sleeping in a bank parking lot at 3 am will attract police attention anywhere.  The subject was nervous, he didn't have registration or insurance id, he had two sets of plates, the cop saw the gun cases and he lied to police,  he wasn't transporting the guns IAW FOPA.  Being a former police officer I would think he would be aware of FOPA.  Just a few things I picked out from the appellate decision.  Not showing up for his own trial certainly didn't help his appeal. Nappen said what I would expect a defense attorney to say but he didn't state all the facts.

I agree. NJ gun laws suck.  They are the result of trying to make something illegal except what we permit.

Someone should start a thread listing all the people who have been arrested transporting firearms and stopped to use the bathroom, get gas, or something to eat.  I have asked this question at least dozens of times and no one's come up with one.  There has to be at least one in the last nearly 50 years "reasonable deviation" has been the law in NJ.  There has to be at least one in the past 10 years where everything hits the internet.  I don't know of any.  

Please show me one case.

Not long ago there was some phony baloney story going around that a guy was arrested after dropping someone off returning from the range.  There were reactions here, on other forums and Facebook pages to what turned out to be a phony story.

Some dummy who's a security guard who wants to be a cop puts his gun in his glove compartment and forgets it's there.  Maybe he "forgot" so he could impress his girlfriend.  Seems to me he's not much of a responsible gun owner if he doesn't know where his only gun is. 

While the wording "reasonable deviation" leaves a lot to interpretation it's worked okay in NJ.  No one has been arrested for an "unreasonable" deviation.  Yes, it needs to be changed but there's no stimulus to do so.

[Walt of Destiny 412]

Re: State v. Renninger

Not a good case to support not taking a piss on the way to the range. The guy was an idiot, asshole or criminal with really bad judgement, a sketchy story and incomplete documentation for the car as well as multiple license plates. 

 

Remove the firearms from the equation. He's still broken  the three simple rules. 

Bad judgement

was an asshole

and didn't keep his mouth shut  

who thinks this guy, ostensibly traveling from Maine to Texas, in a car that's not his, sketchy paperwork with guns on his back seat and a loaded handgun, should be stoping behind a bank to take a snooze? 

Shit man, a Florida neighborhood watch member would have shot him...

the 2nd amendment isn't a defense for stupid. 

The 1st amendment may be, but that's a horse of another color entirely. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

29 minutes ago, Maksim said:

No one will fight over a cc though, they may over cash? Perhaps I spent too much time in ghettos or "watched" Russian mob movies. Lol , or just know a few folks who have the lights, although they would not rob folks. 

One person I knew from the hood used his ex police crown Vic to pull someone over to get her number, he was not a cop. 

Nothing wrong with having a light.  IIRC while NJ law prohibits use of any such lights except as a warning device (using it like a flare) for a disabled vehicle.  I have a small red strobe in one car for such a purpose.  I have a yellow one in my van however unless the law has changed you're supposed to have a permit for the yellow one.

I would only use them as a warning device.

You're friend is lucky no one complained.  There was a cop who lost his job getting phone numbers recently. I know of guys who've lost their jobs for the same thing.

[Sig 2]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

Reninger is not a good example.  The court ruled the search was okay under the circumstances that were present. Not just plain view of a gun case.

Sleeping in a bank parking lot at 3 am will attract police attention anywhere.  The subject was nervous, he didn't have registration or insurance id, he had two sets of plates, the cop saw the gun cases and he lied to police,  he wasn't transporting the guns IAW FOPA.  Being a former police officer I would think he would be aware of FOPA.  Just a few things I picked out from the appellate decision.  Not showing up for his own trial certainly didn't help his appeal. Nappen said what I would expect a defense attorney to say but he didn't state all the facts.

 

1 hour ago, Walt of Destiny said:

Re: State v. Renninger

Not a good case to support not taking a piss on the way to the range. The guy was an idiot, asshole or criminal with really bad judgement, a sketchy story and incomplete documentation for the car as well as multiple license plates. 

 

I left out many of the details because I did not want to get into the specifics as there are so many different flavors and ways you can cut it. Rennigner did exercise very poor judgement and ultimately broke a few laws including having a loaded firearm directly accessible to him. I cited the case to encourage introspection as to how the "reasonable standard" was determined many different times during the traffic stop. Did the findings of the officers and Appelate court judges match the readers own idea of "reasonable", why or why not? I'm calling attention to the fact laws needs to be thoughtfully considered and written clearly with qualifying specifications so they can't be argued one way or the other. Our firearm legislation in its current form allows for too much interpretation.  

[GRIZ 3,369]

28 minutes ago, Sig said:

 

 

I left out many of the details because I did not want to get into the specifics as there are so many different flavors and ways you can cut it. Rennigner did exercise very poor judgement and ultimately broke a few laws including having a loaded firearm directly accessible to him. I cited the case to encourage introspection as to how the "reasonable standard" was determined many different times during the traffic stop. Did the findings of the officers and Appelate court judges match the readers own idea of "reasonable", why or why not? I'm calling attention to the fact laws needs to be thoughtfully considered and written clearly with qualifying specifications so they can't be argued one way or the other. Ourfirearm legislation in its current form allows for too much interpretation.  

The details is what makes a case or an argument.  Reninger is a poor example of "reasonable deviation".  If you want to give an example you need to state or refer to details.

I do agree the laws in NJ need to be more specific.  However, our system is built on argument.  There's many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument and the guy got off. 

[Sig 2]

16 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

The details is what makes a case or an argument.  Reninger is a poor example of "reasonable deviation".  If you want to give an example you need to state or refer to details.

I do agree the laws in NJ need to be more specific.  However, our system is built on argument.  There's many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument and the guy got off. 

Just to be clear I did not cite the case to specifically support "reasonable deviation." I wanted to expand the scope to just the "reasonable" standard alone. I wanted to encourage people to think about how everything is open to interpretation with or without mitigating circumstances. In my opinion firearm laws should be clearly defined so that there is very little room for argument. Ideally, the cases that are being argued in our court systems should be those rare long shot exceptions to the rule. The majority of circumstances, however you choose to set the stage, should be clearly defined. If laws aren't clearly defined it allows for inconsistent or disparate application of the law. Yes, there are many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument. But, this is exactly how responsible gun owners get their lives ruined and jail time for minor nuances of the law that are "argued" better by The State of NJ than some criminal defense lawyer you just spent your entire life savings on.

[Newtonian 453]

On 5/21/2017 at 3:35 PM, fishnut said:

I've been asked but only because I was rear ended coming home from shooting clays. 3 shotguns in the front passenger compartment of my jeep. 2 in socks and 1 with no case, all unloaded. Cop looked at the guns and asked me if they were unloaded which I responded yes because they were. That was the end of the discussion about guns. 

Honestly I hope I get pulled over one day and some rookie cop decides to arrest me for legally transporting guns. I'll pull a Mr Dow and fall and break my jaw. When my lawyer is done with them I'll open the first NJGF range and you all can come and shoot for free! 

You must be young and stupid like most everyone here was at one time. You don't want that. You don't want anything to do with law enforcement any time, any way. The deeper you get into an encounter the greater the chance you'll be seriously injured or killed, or lose your liberty for years. After your brains get bashed in you will enjoy your $10 million settlement strapped into a basket with wheels. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, Sig said:

Just to be clear I did not cite the case to specifically support "reasonable deviation." I wanted to expand the scope to just the "reasonable" standard alone. I wanted to encourage people to think about how everything is open to interpretation with or without mitigating circumstances. In my opinion firearm laws should be clearly defined so that there is very little room for argument. Ideally, the cases that are being argued in our court systems should be those rare long shot exceptions to the rule. The majority of circumstances, however you choose to set the stage, should be clearly defined. If laws aren't clearly defined it allows for inconsistent or disparate application of the law. Yes, there are many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument. But, this is exactly how responsible gun owners get their lives ruined and jail time for minor nuances of the law that are "argued" better by The State of NJ than some criminal defense lawyer you just spent your entire life savings on.

But no one ever been charged with a violation of reasonable deviation.

Reasonable is a term locked in our criminal justice system.  It starts with reasonable suspicion.  It goes on to probable cause.  The best definition of probable cause I've heard is that it is circumstances that would lead a reasonable person a crime has been committed.  "Reasonable Person" is usually a LEO and reasonable means based on his or her training and experience.  What would be reasonable to a LEO may not seem reasonable to a burger flipper.  The fact that no one had ever been charged with violating reasonable deviation would indicate that it's working.

Sometimes the prosecution has to take a case to trial without the best case. Sometimes you get the 12 bumpkins on the jury.  Sometimes the bad guy gets off because the prosecutor or cop didn't do something right.  Sometimes a bad guy wins on appeal because the judge didn't do something right.  This is our system of justice.  Not perfect but the best one out there.

Yes, the gun laws need to be redone.

The judge I'd the final decider of what reasonable means.

[gleninjersey 2,139]

Here are some simple, common sense rules when you find yourself in an encounter with a law enforcement officer:

How Not To Get You Ass Kicked By The Police by Chris Rock.

 

 

[Walt of Destiny 412]

1 hour ago, Sig said:

Just to be clear I did not cite the case to specifically support "reasonable deviation." I wanted to expand the scope to just the "reasonable" standard alone. I wanted to encourage people to think about how everything is open to interpretation with or without mitigating circumstances. In my opinion firearm laws should be clearly defined so that there is very little room for argument. Ideally, the cases that are being argued in our court systems should be those rare long shot exceptions to the rule. The majority of circumstances, however you choose to set the stage, should be clearly defined. If laws aren't clearly defined it allows for inconsistent or disparate application of the law. Yes, there are many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument. But, this is exactly how responsible gun owners get their lives ruined and jail time for minor nuances of the law that are "argued" better by The State of NJ than some criminal defense lawyer you just spent your entire life savings on.

I understand, but one aspect of a case cannot be examined without context of the whole incident. 

Griz noted that "reasonable" is the wildcard and for a good reason. We all hate the Graves act because it takes all judicial perogative out of the process. The reason our system of laws uses judges and not a checklist to determine guilt or punishment is because each case is unique and the circumstances can dictate a departure from the black and white "letter of the law". So "reasonable" is purposefully left to a judge or jury to determine in each case. 

One other, maybe intended, consequence of these "guidelines" or mandatory minimum sentences is that it concentrates the power over defendants in the prosecutorial realm. In essence it politicizes the process and puts transgressions of "administrative" regulations, like the possession of a 16 round magazine, without a weapon,  ammunition, a crime being committed or criminal intent, into the same section as a gangbanger's conviction for actual criminal actions on the prosecutor's  resume. Feeling safer yet? 

Reference Mr. Preet Bharara and his crusade against corporate malefeasence or Eric Schneiderman and his overt attacks on DJT and the 2nd amendment. 

Getting back to our armed-behind-the-bank-snoozer. The cop had every reason to be suspicious. I may be a burger flipper but I would still have been reasonably suspicious. In the decision, which I read, the cop's spidey senses started tingling when he saw the car and the defendant didn't do himself any favors the the subsequent contact. He was irresponsible and probably a threat to minimally the cop. You can't use anything in this case as example of anything related to a guy going to the range, being a responsible gun owner, and stopping to take a pee. 

This guy was a douche. I don't wish this crap on anyone. But he did everyting wrong. The criminal defense attorney on the original case didn't have a lot to hang his hat on. 

So to put a bow on it, remember "Death Wish?" (Boy there's a movie begging for a remake) after Bronson got a taste of vigilantism he went for a walk after dark in Central Park swinging an expensive camera. Of course there was somebody ready to mug him. He was asking for it. Just like sleeping behind a bank at 3 am with firearms in plain view and a loaded glock, on your way from Maine to Texas by way of Readington, NJ. 

Reasonable suspicion? Fuck yea. Even for a burger flipper. 

[Sig 2]

4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

But no one ever been charged with a violation of reasonable deviation.

Reasonable is a term locked in our criminal justice system.  It starts with reasonable suspicion.  It goes on to probable cause.  The best definition of probable cause I've heard is that it is circumstances that would lead a reasonable person a crime has been committed.  "Reasonable Person" is usually a LEO and reasonable means based on his or her training and experience.  What would be reasonable to a LEO may not seem reasonable to a burger flipper.  The fact that no one had ever been charged with violating reasonable deviation would indicate that it's working.

Sometimes the prosecution has to take a case to trial without the best case. Sometimes you get the 12 bumpkins on the jury.  Sometimes the bad guy gets off because the prosecutor or cop didn't do something right.  Sometimes a bad guy wins on appeal because the judge didn't do something right.  This is our system of justice.  Not perfect but the best one out there.

Yes, the gun laws need to be redone.

The judge I'd the final decider of what reasonable means.

 

4 hours ago, Walt of Destiny said:

I understand, but one aspect of a case cannot be examined without context of the whole incident. 

Griz noted that "reasonable" is the wildcard and for a good reason. We all hate the Graves act because it takes all judicial perogative out of the process. The reason our system of laws uses judges and not a checklist to determine guilt or punishment is because each case is unique and the circumstances can dictate a departure from the black and white "letter of the law". So "reasonable" is purposefully left to a judge or jury to determine in each case. 

Again, to reiterate, I did not cite the case to support "reasonable deviation" itself. I cited the case to encourage dialogue among oneself to realize just how easily the law is allowed to be interpreted. Yes, the judge is the  final interpretation. The motivation of my posts was to address what was being perceived as unnecessary paranoia. While an individual may feel they were following the letter of the law, the current verbiage of certain laws allows members of our judicial system to interpret it in such a way that you have committed a crime. Thus the paranoia is justified and in in some ways is healthy. I believe we're all saying the same thing in the end.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I didn't discuss reasonable deviation in my last post. I discussed how reasonable is used throughout our justice system.

Yes. Reasonable is open to interpretation.  Always was, always will be.  Jurors need to find you "guilty without a reasonable doubt".  Someone gets found guilty with one jury and maybe found not guilty if they had another jury.  Bring an issue before one judge and he finds it reasonable.  Another judge might find it unreasonable.  It happens all the time.

[Walt of Destiny 412]

On 6/3/2017 at 0:33 PM, JohnGalt said:

 

 

Used rope eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Zip ties. No knots. CSI can't do a molecular analysis and figure out what hardware store you bought it from and get you from your CC receipt and video. 

A friend told me. 

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I'm enjoying reading this exchange.  As Griz has noted, "Reasonable" is open to interpretation.  IMHO if we let Cops & Judges be more "reasonable" instead of boxing them into a corner a-la the Graves Act w/ a mandatory minimum for a hand gun possession charge, folks like Shaneen Allen wouldn't have spent 40 days in jail for crossing the NJ border with a PA LTCF and .380 Bersa & a mag's worth of hollow points (the automatic add-on charge).  

If we had more "reasonable" discretion allowed in our laws:

OK, no wants, no warrants, LTCF presented with your DL for a MV stop after crossing the border.  A MISTAKE!  NO intent.  NO gun running w/ unregistered hand guns.  NO case of .380 HP in the trunk to feed the Gang Bangers.  No Tech-9 Evil Death machine.  Turn her around & tell her to go put the gun back in Philly---OR---escort her to a Jersey FFL so the Bersa can be "booked-in" & shipped to a Phiily FFL & send her on her way.  OR make her sign the gun over at HQ & have them ship it to a Philly FFL for a (fine) nuisance fee.  Yeah, I know, a pipe dream.  But sometimes solutions are found in pipe dreams  .

What would a "reasonable person" expect to happen to themselves for transporting into the People's Republik of New Jermany a registered loaded firearm while carrying a CCW permit issued by their neighboring resident state for that firearm?  I guess the answer depends upon what you're trained to think if you're OTJ or how naive you are?  My marriage license works in PA, right?  

At the end of the day, we all realize that the laws need changed.  At the end of the day if National Reciprocity comes to NJ (for real, w/o Weinberg-style forced limitations), NJ Cops & Prosecutors will need re-trained on what's "REASONABLE" and threads about stopping to pee won't get so much "ink"... 

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

On 6/3/2017 at 11:29 AM, Walt of Destiny said:

 

on the other hand, you're having a nice free donut yesterday, sitting by the side of the road and some guys in "their wife's" minivan roll through a stop sign in Bridgewater. You put the Boston creme down and do what you have to do.  Soccer sticker, clean license... you know why I pulled you over? 

Don't say:

"Because I'm on the way to the range and I h ave 14 guns and 3k rounds of ammo and  you're anti 2nd amendment."

Say:

"because I'm an idiot and rolled through a stop sign?"

the above "rolling through a stop sign" story is true. Except for the duct tape.  

 

 

Why would you admit to anything?  That alone is a confession, and thus legally opens the door to a car search.

 

[Smokin .50 1,907]

7 minutes ago, Cemeterys Gun Blob said:

Why would you admit to anything?  That alone is a confession, and thus legally opens the door to a car search.

 

Hey Blob, your quote is out of context.  Walt was using the scenario as an illustration, NOT condoning admitting to a fault for running the sign and certainly not admitting to carrying a mini arsenal in his vehicle.  Suggest you re-read his last few posts to get the "flavor" of the statements  

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

1 minute ago, Smokin .50 said:

Hey Blob, your quote is out of context.  Walt was using the scenario as an illustration, NOT condoning admitting to a fault for running the sign and certainly not admitting to carrying a mini arsenal in his vehicle.  Suggest you re-read his last few posts to get the "flavor" of the statements  

I have no time to reread anything.  Best to just shoot my mouth off instead of actually being concerned with 'context'.......

[Newtonian 453]

On 6/4/2017 at 7:56 PM, GRIZ said:

But no one ever been charged with a violation of reasonable deviation.

 

That's not what the charge would be or what you'd read in the police blotter. You'd be arrested for "illegal possession of a firearm," which could result from any number of specific circumstances. It might be because you took an "unreasonable" deviation, was traveling between non-exempt locations, had someone else's gun, or for violating any other of the myriad circumstances carved out in the law. 

This always comes down to the same thing. If you don't get stopped you can't get snagged. If you do get stopped and you don't act like an asshole and have a clean record you won't get snagged. There are probably 10,000 individuals in this state carrying illegally as I write this. None will get in trouble until they do something stupid. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, Newtonian said:

That's not what the charge would be or what you'd read in the police blotter. You'd be arrested for "illegal possession of a firearm," which could result from any number of specific circumstances. It might be because you took an "unreasonable" deviation, was traveling between non-exempt locations, had someone else's gun, or for violating any other of the myriad circumstances carved out in the law. 

This always comes down to the same thing. If you don't get stopped you can't get snagged. If you do get stopped and you don't act like an asshole and have a clean record you won't get snagged. There are probably 10,000 individuals in this state carrying illegally as I write this. None will get in trouble until they do something stupid. 

I realize "unreasonable deviation" is not the charge.  To put it another way, no one has ever been arrested for stopping to eat, use the bathroom,  eat, or several other reasons that were listed as reasonable deviations.  No prosecutor wants to take a case to court and when explaining the elements of the crime has to explain "the defendant was illegally in possession of a firearm because he didn't want to crap his pants, was hungry, or needed gas on the way home from the range".  That would make him look silly.

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.  The problem is police generally don't know which of those 10,000 carrying illegally are good guys or bad guys.  A carry permit system in NJ would make it easy.  Good guys have permits, bad guys don't. 

On 6/5/2017 at 1:36 PM, Cemeterys Gun Blob said:

Why would you admit to anything?  That alone is a confession, and thus legally opens the door to a car search.

 

I know this has been addressed already but deserves mention.  Admitting to committing a traffic violation does not allow a car search.  You can be arrested for any MV violation IIRC. There are only a handful of them that one usually gets arrested for committing.  Stop signs violations are not one of them.

[Newtonian 453]

17 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I know this has been addressed already but deserves mention.  Admitting to committing a traffic violation does not allow a car search.  You can be arrested for any MV violation IIRC. There are only a handful of them that one usually gets arrested for committing.  Stop signs violations are not one of them.

There are tons of videos on Youtube of guys being assholes to cops and getting away with it. I think when it comes to unwarranted (both legally and in the general sense of the word) searches yes, you should politely refuse. Otherwise you'll get nowhere and make no friends by lawyering up to a cop during a routine traffic stop. I've been stopped numerous times in the past 45 years. If you were going 53 in a 35 mph zone (as I was a few years ago) you're not getting any slack from the system by playing Youtube Lawyer and not answering questions. I've sat in traffic court for perhaps 20 hours of my life and never once did I hear a cop say, "Well your honor, he told me he was speeding." Nor have I ever seen a "judge" side with a motorist in a he said/she said situation. Your "trial" essentially begins and ends with the stop.

Contrary to what the Legal Warriors warn I have not been given tickets MANY times after respecting the officer's intelligence. "Maybe I didn't come to a full stop? I'm not sure. I had something on my mind" shows mild remorse without setting off the cop's defensive radar. Remember, in practically all his/her encounters that day, the cop is dealing with people who are trying to get away with crap. Don't add fuel to the fire and sometimes good things will happen.