Return of My Mags After Weapons Seizure

[capt14k 2,052]

 
 
Good, the police who stole her shit from her home can return it. They are exempt. 
 

It should be returned. If they want to argue the law doesn't allow the return they can picked up by a PA resident or any resident of a free state, because she transferred the magazines to them. She may need to provide a notorized letter and sales slip. The person picking them up should then be covered under FOPA to transport the magazines from NJ back to the free state in which they reside. I would post on PAFOA Forum and give the magazines away to anyone who wants to pick them up. Better to be in a "civilian's" hands.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[1LtCAP 4,263]

2 hours ago, M4BGRINGO said:

Walk into the police station with a box large enough for all your mags with a UPS label attached with an address for another state where they are legal and you have a friend/relative there that can legally take possession of them. Seal it up in front of them, ask them if they would like to escort you to the nearest UPS pickup site, then tell them thanks........... 

probably the best suggestion in this whole thread.

[Sniper 6,372]

27 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

and that otherwise the magazines are illegal outside your home right now.

Which means they are LEGAL inside your home until December 13th.

27 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Good, the police who stole her shit from her home can return it.

Absolutely. The law is clear as crystal. Not sure what her attorney is doing, unless there's more to the story that we don't know.

[GRIZ 3,369]

28 minutes ago, capt14k said:

It should be returned. If they want to argue the law doesn't allow the return they can picked up by a PA resident or any resident of a free state, because she transferred the magazines to them. She may need to provide a notorized letter and sales slip. The person picking them up should then be covered under FOPA to transport the magazines from NJ back to the free state in which they reside. I would post on PAFOA Forum and give the magazines away to anyone who wants to pick them up. Better to be in a "civilian's" hands.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

That would be a transfer to another person in the state of NJ no matter where that person is from.

FOPA requires they be legal at the start and end of trip.  A PA resident cannot legally acquire magazines over 10 rds in NJ.  Any transfer to a PA resident would have to be outside of NJ. 

[tony357 386]

How many mags are we talking about? if it is just few not worth involving your lawyer, does not hurt to bring the statue with you when you pick up and ask for them back stating you have the grace period for your FFL to permanently make them ten rounders or sell for you to legal state.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

3 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

Which means they are LEGAL inside your home until December 13th.

Absolutely. The law is clear as crystal. Not sure what her attorney is doing, unless there's more to the story that we don't know.

SADLY.....and i hate to sound cynical.....there almost always is more to the story.

[MartyZ 692]

On 9/1/2018 at 9:06 PM, capt14k said:

 

Never said you did. Read through official UPS rules and it says next day shipping. If something happened regardless of what store told you good chance you would be SOL with insurance claim. Also stores are franchise run so what they tell you is meaningless. If you went to hub then maybe they would honor insurance claim. This topic has been discussed over an over on gunboards. Plenty of links and posts of official wording there and on their sites.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You can ship rifles and pistols via UPS, must be next day, must declare as a firearm when creating the shipment, must NOT have any indication on the outside of the package that a firearm is in the package, must hand package to UPS driver or UPS Customer Counter employee only. You can NOT drop the package off at a UPS Store or any other UPS authorized outlet such as staples, etc...

[Greenday 323]

Which means they are LEGAL inside your home until December 13th

No they are not. We just have a 180 day grace period where they are not enforcing the law to give people a chance to be in compliance with the law.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

22 minutes ago, Greenday said:

No they are not. We just have a 180 day grace period where they are not enforcing the law to give people a chance to be in compliance with the law.
 

 

Semantics.  You cannot be prosecuted for possession within your home during the grace period is effectively the same as legal.

[capt14k 2,052]

You can ship rifles and pistols via UPS, must be next day, must declare as a firearm when creating the shipment, must NOT have any indication on the outside of the package that a firearm is in the package, must hand package to UPS driver or UPS Customer Counter employee only. You can NOT drop the package off at a UPS Store or any other UPS authorized outlet such as staples, etc...

Correct except rifles don't need to ship next day

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[capt14k 2,052]

That would be a transfer to another person in the state of NJ no matter where that person is from.
FOPA requires they be legal at the start and end of trip.  A PA resident cannot legally acquire magazines over 10 rds in NJ.  Any transfer to a PA resident would have to be outside of NJ. 

Then I would demand they be destroyed in my presence so no cop got them.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[voyager9 3,434]

30 minutes ago, Greenday said:

No they are not. We just have a 180 day grace period where they are not enforcing the law to give people a chance to be in compliance with the law.

 

There is a huge difference between “they are (choosing to) not enforce the law” and “They are unable to charge/prosecute the law”.   According to the law previously owned mags are legal to possess during the grace period. 

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, Greenday said:

No they are not. We just have a 180 day grace period where they are not enforcing the law to give people a chance to be in compliance with the law.

Dude, laws don't work that way. They don't give law enforcement the "option" to enforce or not enforce. It's black and white.

Every time you show up and post, you really embarrass yourself.

[capt14k 2,052]

Dude, laws don't work that way. They don't give law enforcement the "option" to enforce or not enforce. It's black and white.
Every time you show up and post, you really embarrass yourself.

Not in NJ. See marijuana laws.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Sniper 6,372]

5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Not in NJ.

You missed the point, the young man was insinuating that was how the law was written, and the LEOs were told to not enforce it for 180 days.

@Greenday

^@Greenday

¹[4.]   5.¹   (New section)  ¹[Any] Except as provided in section 7 of P.L.     , c.   (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill),¹ a person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L.     , c.     (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days ¹[from] after¹ the effective date of this act.  During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall: 

     a.     Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

     b.    Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable ¹or permanently modify a large capacity ammunition magazine to accept 10 rounds or less¹; or

     c.     Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.

[capt14k 2,052]

You missed the point, the young man was insinuating that was how the law was written, and the LEOs were told to not enforce it for 180 days.

[mention=9469]Greenday[/mention]

^{[mention=9469]Greenday[/mention]}

¹[4.]   5.¹   (New section)  ¹[Any] Except as provided in section 7 of P.L.     , c.   (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill),¹ a person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L.     , c.     (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days ¹[from] after¹ the effective date of this act.  During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall: 

     a.     Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

     b.    Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable ¹or permanently modify a large capacity ammunition magazine to accept 10 rounds or less¹; or

     c.     Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.

I was only responding to how screwed up NJ is. AG overrides written law by telling LEO not to enforce like he is a King. State Police firearms agree new law as written allows C&R shipped to home but still say it isn't allowed. NJ has to be the only state written and signed law can be overturned by appointed individuals.

 

 

As for the law she should get her mags back. It's very clear possession is allowed but again some hired thug is saying screw the law.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

Then I would demand they be destroyed in my presence so no cop got them.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

You can demand all you want but there is no provision in the law for that.

The law says possession of magazines >10 rds is permitted at this time.  This means in the home as has been discussed.  The only exceptions are to transfer the magazines to an entity legal to possess them,  render them inoperable or permanently modify them to 10 rds or less, or surrender them.  AFAIK all seized firearms are turned over to the County Prosecutor's office until disposition.  That would include seized magazines.

Return of the magazines would constitute a transfer from police custody to the OP.  There is no provision for that in the exceptions given above.  The magazines became prima face contraband when they were seized.

As far as "some cop" getting them destruction of seized property in NJ requires the custodian and two witnesses.  Do you think 3 cops are going to risk their jobs over a couple of magazines?

All government entities have provisions to convert seized property to their own use.  If the magazines are converted to agency use yes some cop will get them.  That's the way it is under the current law.

I'm not necessarily supporting any of this.  JMO of the situation as it is.  Hiring lawyers and filing petitions is plain stupid.  If you win you spent maybe a couple thousand dollars for a few magazines.

[capt14k 2,052]

You can demand all you want but there is no provision in the law for that.
The law says possession of magazines >10 rds is permitted at this time.  This means in the home as has been discussed.  The only exceptions are to transfer the magazines to an entity legal to possess them,  render them inoperable or permanently modify them to 10 rds or less, or surrender them.  AFAIK all seized firearms are turned over to the County Prosecutor's office until disposition.  That would include seized magazines.
Return of the magazines would constitute a transfer from police custody to the OP.  There is no provision for that in the exceptions given above.  The magazines became prima face contraband when they were seized.
As far as "some cop" getting them destruction of seized property in NJ requires the custodian and two witnesses.  Do you think 3 cops are going to risk their jobs over a couple of magazines?
All government entities have provisions to convert seized property to their own use.  If the magazines are converted to agency use yes some cop will get them.  That's the way it is under the current law.
I'm not necessarily supporting any of this.  JMO of the situation as it is.  Hiring lawyers and filing petitions is plain stupid.  If you win you spent maybe a couple thousand dollars for a few magazines.

I disagree it is a transfer as the law is written. I also disagree about being able to transport them and use them. Yes there are instances of cops having taken property in the past. The guy recently who posted the cop returned his ammo from his trunk is just one example of many. The world you live in where all cops follow all laws, rules, and regulations to a T must be a great one. However just look at Edison PD and you will see it isn't reality.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

14 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I disagree it is a transfer as the law is written. I also disagree about being able to transport them and use them. Yes there are instances of cops having taken property in the past. The guy recently who posted the cop returned his ammo from his trunk is just one example of many. The world you live in where all cops follow all laws, rules, and regulations to a T must be a great one. However just look at Edison PD and you will see it isn't reality.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I never said cops don't break the law at times.  You seem to think all cops break the law all of the time.

[capt14k 2,052]

I never said cops don't break the law at times.  You seem to think all cops break the law all of the time.

No I did not say that. I qualified my statement with all. Some don't.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Sniper 6,372]

4 hours ago, Greenday said:

No they are not. We just have a 180 day grace period where they are not enforcing the law to give people a chance to be in compliance with the law.

I was thinking about this point of view. Members of this forum have discussed this new mag law ad nauseam for months, and we still have members here who don't understand it.

What happens to all the casual shooters that shoot once or twice a year, who aren't members here, and don't know the new law, when they show up at a range after Dec. 13th with their "high capacity" 15 round mags? I'm sure there will be plenty.

Murphy will be able to make a killing, just park a sheriff's office bus at a range and arrest people all day long. He'll make millions!!

[capt14k 2,052]

I was thinking about this point of view. Members of this forum have discussed this new mag law ad nauseam for months, and we still have members here who don't understand it.
What happens to all the casual shooters that shoot once or twice a year, who aren't members here, and don't know the new law, when they show up at a range after Dec. 13th with their "high capacity" 15 round mags? I'm sure there will be plenty.
Murphy will be able to make a killing, just park a sheriff's office bus at a range and arrest people all day long. He'll make millions!!

Wouldn't surprise me if it was in the works.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

12 minutes ago, capt14k said:

No I did not say that. I qualified my statement with all. Some don't.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

By saying "some don't" shows what you want to believe.  Apparently if "some don't" , most do as far as you're concerned.

 

[capt14k 2,052]

By saying "some don't" shows what you want to believe.  Apparently if "some don't" , most do as far as you're concerned.
 

No it was actually the opposite. I would say 10% are criminals another 10% complete douchebags, 10% indifferent, and 70% good.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[PK90 3,570]

5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

No it was actually the opposite. I would say 10% are criminals another 10% complete douchebags, 10% indifferent, and 70% good.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

-1

DISLIKE THIS POST

[capt14k 2,052]

-1
DISLIKE THIS POST

I pulled the numbers out of there air in response to the semantics game Griz wanted to play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

11 minutes ago, PK90 said:

-1

DISLIKE THIS POST

I was told to “ let The asshole’s be assholes” 

[GRIZ 3,369]

47 minutes ago, capt14k said:

No it was actually the opposite. I would say 10% are criminals another 10% complete douchebags, 10% indifferent, and 70% good.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

 

39 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

I pulled the numbers out of there air in response to the semantics game Griz wanted to play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No semantics game. You said "some" that would mean a small amout.

[capt14k 2,052]

No semantics game. You said "some" that would mean a small amout.

 

 

Maybe some 095 Reading Comp Classes are in order.

 

Original post used all as not all follow the rules.

 

Then I said some don't. Meaning some do not follow the rules.

 

How is that so hard to follow, and why are you trying to turn my statement that a small amount (your words for some) don't follow the rules into a small amount do?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

 

Maybe some 095 Reading Comp Classes are in order.

Original post used all as not all follow the rules.

Then I said some don't. Meaning some do not follow the rules.

How is that so hard to follow.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

No classes required.