Jump to content
Sniper

Woo Hoo.... Murphy Grabs His First Felon With a Large Capacity ClipaZine

Recommended Posts

On 1/6/2019 at 12:01 AM, pjd832 said:

Where in that article did it say he did t lawfully own the rifle?

Unlawful Possession of an Assault Rifle. 

Although that can be seen as either he was in possession of a non-compliant rifle or he was in possession without an FPID.  One is a 3rd degree offense and the other is 4th.  Both are under 2C:39-5

Either way he didn't lawfully own the rifle (either the rifle was illegal or he didn't have an ID).

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/AL18/39_.PDF

Additional note, "Assault Rifle" is not a defined legal term in the law.  So the charge isn't technically correct which makes the story even worse.  It's just making phrases to sound nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

"This is a ghost gun," de Leon begins, holding an unloaded rifle in his hands. "This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second."

^^The bar to which all other gun gaffes are held. :rofl:

image.jpeg.cc7abeb58cdb213940679b574e5a6e6b.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GunsnFreedom said:

Unlawful Possession of an Assault Rifle. 

Although that can be seen as either he was in possession of a non-compliant rifle or he was in possession without an FPID.  One is a 3rd degree offense and the other is 4th.  Both are under 2C:39-5

Either way he didn't lawfully own the rifle (either the rifle was illegal or he didn't have an ID).

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/AL18/39_.PDF

Additional note, "Assault Rifle" is not a defined legal term in the law.  So the charge isn't technically correct which makes the story even worse.  It's just making phrases to sound nice.

Or could it be possible they are calling running outside sending rounds errantly at a car driving down the road “unlawful possession”?.......much like possession of a legally purchased/owned handgun outside exempted locations would result in the same charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little astonished at the opinions surmised here, purely based on tattoo's, and beards. There are many police officers in the state of in NJ that have full sleeves. Our Presidents have had beards in the not so distant past. Would you have a different opinion of Law enforcement because of their tattoos and beards?

There are quite a few cops in my gym with full sleeves, And beards...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pjd832 said:

Or could it be possible they are calling running outside sending rounds errantly at a car driving down the road “unlawful possession”?.......much like possession of a legally purchased/owned handgun outside exempted locations would result in the same charge?

Did you read the original post?

Among other things he was charged with "Possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose", "Unlawful Possession of an Assault Rifle", "Pointing a firearm in the direction of a person or property".

This wasn't a happy suburban chap who followed the letter of the law his whole life with the exception of this one slip up.  It's a thug who didn't legally possess or handle the weapon.

It's like you're making a theoretical argument and ignoring the article.

 

1 hour ago, nondisclosure said:

I'm a little astonished at the opinions surmised here, purely based on tattoo's, and beards. There are many police officers in the state of in NJ that have full sleeves. Our Presidents have had beards in the not so distant past. Would you have a different opinion of Law enforcement because of their tattoos and beards?

There are quite a few cops in my gym with full sleeves, And beards...

 

I think the opinions are based on the totality of the scenario, so in this case the tattoos are just the icing on the cake. 

ZLHHOVSAKBGVTBA4DFHGNVJWDA.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 10:40 AM, pjd832 said:

Will everoyone on here label him a criminal too?

I'm with you, BUT, remember, the laws(sucky as they are) of this stupid state  are written so as to snag everyone they can possibly hook their teeth into.

Ignorance being no excuse,

everything being illegal unless it falls under exemption,

and the piss poor distribution of the information regarding those laws  to the general public. 

People are expected to know, yet it hardly gets the publicity that the  weather report or lottery winners in the state get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

Did you read the original post?

Among other things he was charged with "Possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose", "Unlawful Possession of an Assault Rifle", "Pointing a firearm in the direction of a person or property".

This wasn't a happy suburban chap who followed the letter of the law his whole life with the exception of this one slip up.  It's a thug who didn't legally possess or handle the weapon.

It's like you're making a theoretical argument and ignoring the article.

 

I think the opinions are based on the totality of the scenario, so in this case the tattoos are just the icing on the cake. 

ZLHHOVSAKBGVTBA4DFHGNVJWDA.jpg

I read the article including the charges, I did not say/suggest he was a middle aged, milk toast, software engineer, minivan driving soccer dad. 

Just that simply, instantly condemning him based on appearance and “charges” listed by an anti gun rag in an anti gun state might be wrong. 

And that there may be other possibilities, and that he may have been mischarged/overcharged in regards to the possession, that town is small and not urban and stuff like that is not a normal event.

They’re mainly domestic/dui/speed trap/heroin& related crimes town, so having had personal experience professionally with the chief and a few Sgts and Lts it’s not inconceivable to me that there may be some incorrect charges. 

I have no dog in the fight and could care less really, other than amazed at the automatic reaction by most on here.

Original report listing count of spent casings and rounds left in mag made it seem like it was a 15/30 mag, which is what I originally commented about. But everyone kept talking about his looks and discharging at fleeing persons/vehicle. I was not, now the article no longer lists the counts so they must have edited it to match the “assault clipozine” charge.... or they tested and VERIFIED/confirmed it was a 30 with 15 rounds in it, not a 15/30 that he owned prior to the reduction that he may not have know about. I know even if that was the case it’s no excuse to break the law, or justifies leniency based on the additional bad decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 12:15 PM, GunsnFreedom said:

Unlawful Possession of an Assault Rifle. 

Although that can be seen as either he was in possession of a non-compliant rifle or he was in possession without an FPID.  One is a 3rd degree offense and the other is 4th.  Both are under 2C:39-5

Either way he didn't lawfully own the rifle (either the rifle was illegal or he didn't have an ID).

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/AL18/39_.PDF

Additional note, "Assault Rifle" is not a defined legal term in the law.  So the charge isn't technically correct which makes the story even worse.  It's just making phrases to sound nice.

You don’t need a fpid card to own! Only to purchase as a state resident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×

Important Information