Jump to content
ChrisJM981

"Loaded magazine is a felony" (not this **** again)

Recommended Posts

I was at a monthly meeting for the new range I am joining and one of the individuals that runs the range safety orientation stated that someone attending the orientation came with loaded magazines and that it's a felony. I know it's not in the statutes, you know it's not there, so where is this coming from? Is there any instances where this happened, case law, precedent, or whatever the proper term is? I'm not looking to create an argument, but come on. Where is this nonsense coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

I was at a monthly meeting for the new range I am joining and one of the individuals that runs the range safety orientation stated that someone attending the orientation came with loaded magazines and that it's a felony. I know it's not in the statutes, you know it's not there, so where is this coming from? Is there any instances where this happened, case law, precedent, or whatever the proper term is? I'm not looking to create an argument, but come on. Where is this nonsense coming from?

Nappen!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't remember what state it was in (not NJ, CA I think) but IIRC a guy was arrested for a loaded firearm as he had loaded magazines not in the gun.  The prosecutor argued that a firearm is loaded if any part of the firearm is loaded with ammunition, for example the tube magazine on a pump shotgun, the firearm is loaded. Apparently the jury or judge bought that idea and they guy was convicted.

The conviction was immediately overturned on appeal.  If the magazine had been in the gun it could he considered loaded even with an empty chamber.  No way would a loaded magazine,  separate from the firearm, be considered a loaded firearm.

The case law established by the appelate court says a loaded magazine is not a firearm. 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney Evan Nappen is one source of this NJ "gunlore".  I've never heard of anyone being arrested, charged or convicted for having loaded magazines.

Here's it is straight from him:

https://www.uslawshield.com/land/evan-nappen-tips/assets/3rd in a series of 5 Things Evan Nappen Says New Jersey Gun Owners Need to Know.pdf

Quote

... But remember, in New Jersey, if the ammunition is in the magazine, even though the magazine is kept apart from the gun, it may be considered to be a loaded firearm. So you can’t complain to the officer that you are in compliance with federal law because in New Jersey, you are considered to be in violation of state law. ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell is a loaded magazine a loaded firearm. So with this theory if I had say no firearm with me, but a bunch of loaded magazines I’m going to jail for a loaded firearm just based on the magazines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what Nappen says, is Nappen law and not N.J. law. It is often "suggestion law" designed to avoid placing yourself in a scenario where you encounter a law enforcement officer who believes something to be true, which is not so. The bottom line is that no intelligent prosecutor would seek to prosecute a loaded magazine arrest as a loaded firearm.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Attorney Evan Nappen is one source of this NJ "gunlore".  I've never heard of anyone being arrested, charged or convicted for having loaded magazines.

Here's it is straight from him:

https://www.uslawshield.com/land/evan-nappen-tips/assets/3rd in a series of 5 Things Evan Nappen Says New Jersey Gun Owners Need to Know.pdf

 

And, when pressed, cannot cite a SINGLE INSTANCE to support his assertion.  

This, and his "US Law Shield" venture, has caused me to lose the respect I once had for Mr Nappen.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SJG said:

A lot of what Nappen says, is Nappen law and not N.J. law. It is often "suggestion law" designed to avoid placing yourself in a scenario where you encounter a law enforcement officer who believes something to be true, which is not so. The bottom line is that no intelligent prosecutor would seek to prosecute a loaded magazine arrest as a loaded firearm.

This almost seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. Many LEO don't know the exact verbiage of the law by heart, but the fact that Nappen says that a loaded magazine can be considered a loaded gun, many LEO might believe it thinking that because Nappen specializes in NJ firearm laws he would know it better then them. 

So if Nappen would STFU and stop making up this BS, this would not be an issue, ever!!!

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the range orientation is erring on the side of caution. 

 

I do know that since 2013, New York re-wrote Penal Law 265's definition of a "loaded firearm" and the mere presence of ammunition in conjunction with a "firearm" is considered a "loaded firearm." 

 

Guess we'll have to wait until a New Jersey SAFE Act to where we have something similar etched in stone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartyZ said:

Nappen says that a loaded magazine can be considered a loaded gun,

He doesn't say it can he says it MAY. This is legal speak where every word has a specific meaning. A Prosecutor may try to convince a jury that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun. It may be enough to sway a jury, particularly if the defense attorney is not swift on their feet.

There's a difference between "gun law" and "stuff you might want to consider doing". Is it gun law to put a black blanket over your firearms in the back of your car so someone can't see them? NO, however, it's a damn good idea. There are sorta good ideas, good ideas, and damn good ideas. Use your brain.

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, djg0770 said:

He doesn't say it can he says it MAY. This is legal speak where every word has a specific meaning. A Prosecutor may try to convince a jury that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun. It may be enough to sway a jury, particularly if the defense attorney is not swift on their feet.

There's a difference between "gun law" and "stuff you might want to consider doing". Is it gun law to put a black blanket over your firearms in the back of your car so someone can't see them? NO, however, it's a damn good idea. There are sorta good ideas, good ideas, and damn good ideas. Use your brain.

 

I don't care about the prosecuter at this point, I care about an LEO arresting me for something a lawyer said MAY be illegal. By the time it gets to the prosecutor I will be out at least a few grand.

A lawyer saying something MAY be illegal puts that thought in the back of everyone's mind, as witnessed in so many of these threads, including the minds of LEOs. If Nappen never said anything, this would not even be a subject of discussion and hence would not be in the back of an LEOs mind when he pulls over to help you change a tire on the side of the road, with your trunk wide open, and a loaded magazine lying there in plain view!!!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djg0770 said:

He doesn't say it can he says it MAY. This is legal speak where every word has a specific meaning. A Prosecutor may try to convince a jury that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun. It may be enough to sway a jury, particularly if the defense attorney is not swift on their feet.

There's a difference between "gun law" and "stuff you might want to consider doing". Is it gun law to put a black blanket over your firearms in the back of your car so someone can't see them? NO, however, it's a damn good idea. There are sorta good ideas, good ideas, and damn good ideas. Use your brain.

 

He uses MAY because for some reason he isn't confident to state it is permissable as his legal opinion. I assume that is to act as a protection from civil litigation should someone actually be arrested for it if he said it IS legal. 

I'm not looking to rock the boat at the range. If they don't want us to bring loaded mags for safety reasons I'm all for it.

This falls on Nappen for causing this spread of misinformation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From handgunlaw.us
 

Quote

 

What Does NJ Consider A Loaded Firearm?

New Jersey does not define Loaded.  Their firearm laws us the word Loaded or Unloaded but doesn’t give a definition.  When a state does not define Loaded or Unloaded, Handgunlaw.us recommends that all firearms do not contain any ammo either in a fixed cylinder, fixed magazine or Tube. That all detachable magazines do not contain any ammunition.

 

The only way to resolve this age old dilemma is to force NJ to define the meaning of "loaded".  I believe the state is intentionally leaving open the interpretation so the state may prosecute based on their whims.  If one gets arrested for having  a loaded magazine, the defendant will surely win (eventually), but at a cost of many thousands of dollars.

I am looking around the interwebs to find a NJ case where someone has been arrested for transporting a properly secured loaded mag, that was not attached to a firearm.  It may very well be that there is a president setting case, however, the state continues to intentionally maintain the ambiguity of the matter.

Basically, the state knows it [probably] cannot successfully prosecute, but intentionally keeps the law vague, in order to make the financial burden of defending one's self so costly, it essentially achieves the goal of forcing law abiding citizens to bow down before the state.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartyZ said:

I don't care about the prosecuter at this point, I care about an LEO arresting me for something a lawyer said MAY be illegal. By the time it gets to the prosecutor I will be out at least a few grand.

A lawyer saying something MAY be illegal puts that thought in the back of everyone's mind, as witnessed in so many of these threads, including the minds of LEOs. If Nappen never said anything, this would not even be a subject of discussion and hence would not be in the back of an LEOs mind when he pulls over to help you change a tire on the side of the road, with your trunk wide open, and a loaded magazine lying there in plain view!!!

 

12 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

He uses MAY because for some reason he isn't confident to state it is permissable as his legal opinion. I assume that is to act as a protection from civil litigation should someone actually be arrested for it if he said it IS legal. 

I'm not looking to rock the boat at the range. If they don't want us to bring loaded mags for safety reasons I'm all for it.

This falls on Nappen for causing this spread of misinformation. 

Nappen puts the idea in LEO heads and then gets the benefit of getting paid to represent the victim for a situation he started. Its a win-win for Nappen. The only losers are us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shooter28 said:

 

Nappen puts the idea in LEO heads and then gets the benefit of getting paid to represent the victim for a situation he started. Its a win-win for Nappen. The only losers are us. 

Buy my book, it will keep you out of jail. Buy the law service I sell in case you get arrested anyway. I'm all for capitalism, but not at our peril. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot in this.  First, New Jersey as a rule does not function on common sense.  There may be some LEOs and Attorney's out there that function that way, but it isn't the default setting.  So, lets get that out of the way.  Next, LEOs respond in part to laws on the books and case law.  If you were an otherwise law-abiding citizen should you be arrested for having a loaded mag, or say a pocket knife, or maybe a loaded mag with hollow point ammunition in it, a sling shot out in the woods, or say a single round of hollow point ammunition on face value only?  NO.  There should be common sense.  If you are an otherwise law-abiding citizen that gets pulled over for having your license plate covered partially, should be you prosecuted for having in your possession a 12 round magazine?  NO.  There should be common sense.  However, in this State there is an aspect at least in part of an aggressive agenda and continued brainwashing.  There are those that react and let those above them sort it out, etc.  There is mandatory jail time and fines, etc.  Nappen is a capitalist and a lawyer.  I believe he is knowledgeable about the law.  i believe that there were times when he has seen that ridiculous shit was thrown out and I believe that there were occasions when common sense didn't prevail and the mala prohibitas transgression and its sentence were unjust.  Prosecutors and Judges are just attorneys.  Do I need to say more?  They could and have had agendas contrary to decency and common sense. 

Someone that is in a position to have a loaded magazine should have some common sense and discretion, especially in this place that doesn't recognize rights.  But, if all of the bad luck and pieces come together one could find himself in a bad and expensive situation. 

 Only criminals and undocumented voters are allowed loaded magazines in this state without being questioned. 

Take for example driving around with a cased and unloaded long-arm in this state with an FID in your possession.  Unless you go where it is expressly prohibited, such as a school parking lot, etc. (without permission from the School board), then you are for all purposes legal to do so.  However, try getting away with that at 11:30 at night when you are stopped for a brake light out and a LEO decides to peer into the back of your SUV with a flashlight and notices that oddly shaped case.  Is he going to check it?  Is he going to let you go after questioning you for 20 minutes and allowing you to you brandish your FID card?   Might he take the card?  Might he search every inch of your car and put himself and you in danger as you reside on the side of the road with loaded people driving around?

Same analysis with the magazine.  It certainly by itself is NOT a firearm.  By that logic any part of a firearm could be considered a firearm.  Lets play along, though.  Why are you carrying a loaded magazine?   Theoretically you have a reasonable reason and purpose.  Say you are transporting your firearm from your home to place of business.  You would be putting unnecessary wear and tear on mags loading and unloading and in particular you would be possibly damaging the ammunition in those mags with the loading and unloading process.  It is time consuming and that ammo isn't rattling all around but safely contained in a magazine.  And then there  is the fact that just about ANY NJ law pertaining to firearams is vague enough that there is a "gottcha" built into it any time an overzealous Statist wants to exercise his power.  And if for some reason his spider sense starts tingling you will wish you had stayed home that night.  

 It all comes down to the fact that peaceful and law-abiding citizens should NOT BE examined and put through any of this by a common sense legal system, but yet there is always a risk.   Unless you have a carry permit in this state all of the people living here are taking some risk if they have guns and bullets, and more visibility and attention brings more risk.  

Leos should not be allowed to act on case law, and it should ONLY be used internally by them to justify their common sense approach to given situations.  And even responsibly and carefully crafted laws are open to interpretation.   And in this State, we don't even have those by design.  

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Can't remember what state it was in (not NJ, CA I think) but IIRC a guy was arrested for a loaded firearm as he had loaded magazines not in the gun.  The prosecutor argued that a firearm is loaded if any part of the firearm is loaded with ammunition, for example the tube magazine on a pump shotgun, the firearm is loaded. Apparently the jury or judge bought that idea and they guy was convicted.

The conviction was immediately overturned on appeal.  If the magazine had been in the gun it could he considered loaded even with an empty chamber.  No way would a loaded magazine,  separate from the firearm, be considered a loaded firearm.

The case law established by the appelate court says a loaded magazine is not a firearm. 

 

Yes, but what positive and beneficial results happened to the defendant in this case?   What negative things happened to the legal system participants for going forward with this case?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MartyZ said:

This almost seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. Many LEO don't know the exact verbiage of the law by heart, but the fact that Nappen says that a loaded magazine can be considered a loaded gun, many LEO might believe it thinking that because Nappen specializes in NJ firearm laws he would know it better then them. 

So if Nappen would STFU and stop making up this BS, this would not be an issue, ever!!!

This I don't disagree with to some extent.  However, he probably didn't put it in that DA's head that the magazine was considered a loaded gun.   And, are those reasonable LEOs that unsophisticated that that that they would act unjustly upon that legal scholar and capitalist filling their heads with sugarplum fairies? 

4 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

From handgunlaw.us
 

The only way to resolve this age old dilemma is to force NJ to define the meaning of "loaded".  I believe the state is intentionally leaving open the interpretation so the state may prosecute based on their whims.  If one gets arrested for having  a loaded magazine, the defendant will surely win (eventually), but at a cost of many thousands of dollars.

I am looking around the interwebs to find a NJ case where someone has been arrested for transporting a properly secured loaded mag, that was not attached to a firearm.  It may very well be that there is a president setting case, however, the state continues to intentionally maintain the ambiguity of the matter.

Basically, the state knows it [probably] cannot successfully prosecute, but intentionally keeps the law vague, in order to make the financial burden of defending one's self so costly, it essentially achieves the goal of forcing law abiding citizens to bow down before the state.

 And what if the state knows that the defendant doesn't have the resources the state does in pursuing this desired and just outcome?

Share this post


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

There is a lot in this.  First, New Jersey as a rule does not function on common sense.  There may be some LEOs and Attorney's out there that function that way, but it isn't the default setting.  So, lets get that out of the way.  Next, LEOs respond in part to laws on the books and case law.  If you were an otherwise law-abiding citizen should you be arrested for having a loaded mag, or say a pocket knife, or maybe a loaded mag with hollow point ammunition in it, a sling shot out in the woods, or say a single round of hollow point ammunition on face value only?  NO.  There should be common sense.  If you are an otherwise law-abiding citizen that gets pulled over for having your license plate covered partially, should be you prosecuted for having in your possession a 12 round magazine?  NO.  There should be common sense.  However, in this State there is an aspect at least in part of an aggressive agenda and continued brainwashing.  There are those that react and let those above them sort it out, etc.  There is mandatory jail time and fines, etc.  Nappen is a capitalist and a lawyer.  I believe he is knowledgeable about the law.  i believe that there were times when he has seen that ridiculous shit was thrown out and I believe that there were occasions when common sense didn't prevail and the mala prohibitas transgression and its sentence were unjust.  Prosecutors and Judges are just attorneys.  Do I need to say more?  They could and have had agendas contrary to decency and common sense. 

Someone that is in a position to have a loaded magazine should have some common sense and discretion, especially in this place that doesn't recognize rights.  But, if all of the bad luck and pieces come together one could find himself in a bad and expensive situation. 

 Only criminals and undocumented voters are allowed loaded magazines in this state without being questioned. 

Take for example driving around with a cased and unloaded long-arm in this state with an FID in your possession.  Unless you go where it is expressly prohibited, such as a school parking lot, etc. (without permission from the School board), then you are for all purposes legal to do so.  However, try getting away with that at 11:30 at night when you are stopped for a brake light out and a LEO decides to peer into the back of your SUV with a flashlight and notices that oddly shaped case.  Is he going to check it?  Is he going to let you go after questioning you for 20 minutes and allowing you to you brandish your FID card?   Might he take the card?  Might he search every inch of your car and put himself and you in danger as you reside on the side of the road with loaded people driving around?

Same analysis with the magazine.  It certainly by itself is NOT a firearm.  By that logic any part of a firearm could be considered a firearm.  Lets play along, though.  Why are you carrying a loaded magazine?   Theoretically you have a reasonable reason and purpose.  Say you are transporting your firearm from your home to place of business.  You would be putting unnecessary wear and tear on mags loading and unloading and in particular you would be possibly damaging the ammunition in those mags with the loading and unloading process.  It is time consuming and that ammo isn't rattling all around but safely contained in a magazine.  And then there  is the fact that just about ANY NJ law pertaining to firearams is vague enough that there is a "gottcha" built into it any time an overzealous Statist wants to exercise his power.  And if for some reason his spider sense starts tingling you will wish you had stayed home that night.  

 It all comes down to the fact that peaceful and law-abiding citizens should NOT BE examined and put through any of this by a common sense legal system, but yet there is always a risk.   Unless you have a carry permit in MIthis state all of the people living here are taking some risk if they have guns and bullets, and more visibility and attention brings more risk.  

Leos should not be allowed to act on case law, and it should ONLY be used internally by them to justify their common sense approach to given situations.  And even responsibly and carefully crafted laws are open to interpretation.   And in this State, we don't even have those by design.  

A lot of what you say here is supposition.  You can suppose a lot of things that will never happen.  I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of a person being arrested for having one hollow point in their trunk.  Even though the letter definiing reasonable deviations from the NJ AG is still effect there are many who believe you have to pee your pants if you are enroute to the range.  You're rambling on about things that have never happened.  That's being a fear monger like Nappen.

There is no defense to the vagueness of NJ gun laws.  However you seem to feel LEOS don't exercise common sense.  You're wrong on that.  Yes there have been people arrested because of NJ's ridiculous laws.  However you never hear of the hundreds, probably thousands of times nothing happens because most LEOS do exercise common sense.  None of that makes the news.  It is non-news.

Your argument  that unloading magazines puts unnecessary wear and tear on them and you might damage the ammunition is frivolous.  You probably shouldn't be using them anyway if that's the case.

You say LEOS should not be allowed to act on case law.  That would be illegal.  That's the system created by the COTUS.  If LEOS didn't act on case law there would be no right to remain silent, right to end questioning, or right to counsel.  That was established by case law and Miranda, who was really a criminal, got off because those rights were denied.

I think you're confused with the term case law.  The law established in a trial is law of the case.  Appellate courts establish case law.  Case law can give more liberties or make more restrictions on LEOS.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Yes, but what positive and beneficial results happened to the defendant in this case?   What negative things happened to the legal system participants for going forward with this case?  

True, the defendant suffered emotional and financial loss going through this.  Im not blowing that off. The positive effect is the appeals court determined that a loaded magazine separate from the gun is not a loaded firearm. No one in the jurisdiction of that appellate court will be arrested for that.

Negative effects on the prosecution? Probably none.  Suing for unjust prosecution is not allowed in some jurisdictions and difficult in the rest.  There is reason for this.  Who would take a job as a LEO, prosecutor, or judge if they could be held personally liable for all their actions?  Their position gives them certain immunities.

We have all seen cases go to trial where a criminal commits a violent, heinous crime but the 12 bumpkins on a jury find the guy not guilty because they feel the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Should the criminal be allowed to sue everyone in the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with fear mongering.  It has to do with what is right and what is wrong and subjectively citizens being put into risk.  I would hope that 95 percent of LEOs are decent and on on the up and up and would not want to destroy the lives of people for something like, say a 15 round magazine.  I would hope 98% of attorneys would feel the same, and 100% of the robe-clad ones feeling the same.   Instead, those laws should be enforced when someone is actually in the commission of a real crime, especially a violent crime, and found guilty.  For example, if you go to the range and fire off 15 rounds as quickly as you can from one magazine, you should not face that jeopardy.  However, if say you commit arm robbery and you are found guilty for armed robbery, then that same 15 round law should be tacked on.   There is AlWAYS that fear for honest people if for two things only... mandatory sentencing without common sense applied AND the fact that the "crime" doesn't fit the sentence.  

Griz, it sounds like you are connected in some fashion to law enforcement.   If so, even the laws that do apply, don't really apply to you and you don't face the same jeopardy as a general rule.  You can point out examples where LEOs have, and I can point out examples where good people's lives were destroyed as well. 

As far as the OPs original comment...  We the People are suppose to be made fearful by the legal system and the politicians.  That is our determined relationship to the government. 

You should not have to question whether or not you are doing something that could make you a felon based on a technicality.  However, in NJ, it behooves you to have that mindset in order to avoid pitfalls.  Again, the key is that one interpretation/misinterpretation on either side, yours or the legal system, no matter how slight, and you are subject to unleashed hell. is this a reputable brand of epoxy, clearly secured, etc. and, yet a gangbanger that kills another one in Jersey City has about a 5-6 year jail sentence for murder doesn't even face the multiple possible gun charges.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

A lot of what you say here is supposition.  You can suppose a lot of things that will never happen.  I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of a person being arrested for having one hollow point in their trunk. 

There are any number of dirtbags and criminals arrested with other charges as well, but the ONE case that comes to mind is the one again by Bryan Aitkins.   There was an Eagles player that was arrested and others with loaded guns with HP as well.  

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

 

Your argument  that unloading magazines puts unnecessary wear and tear on them and you might damage the ammunition is frivolous.  You probably shouldn't be using them anyway if that's the case.

That was tongue and cheek...  

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

You say LEOS should not be allowed to act on case law.  That would be illegal.  That's the system created by the COTUS.  If LEOS didn't act on case law there would be no right to remain silent, right to end questioning, or right to counsel.  That was established by case law and Miranda, who was really a criminal, got off because those rights were denied.

I think you're confused with the term case law.  The law established in a trial is law of the case.  Appellate courts establish case law.  Case law can give more liberties or make more restrictions on LEOS.

Quite possibly however those laws should not put limits on citizens unless they are aware of them through a reasonable avenue, such as reading about NJ gun laws.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

  I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of a person being arrested for having one hollow point in their trunk.

It was light on details, but NJ2AS assisted a case with a similar situation (officer noticed a hollow point on floor of vehicle, used that as basis for probable cause):

https://www.nj2as.org/lgbtq_woman_arrested_denied_lawyer_and_medical_treatment_over_legal_firearms

 

 

Quote

...All of this because she had her legally owned firearms, locked in the trunk of her car per federal transport laws, and allegedly a single round [hollow point] on the back floor of her vehicle ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As part of my self-interest and desire to learn more via continuing education regarding the arcane and confusing, (if not un-Constitutional), NJ gun laws, I have attended several conferences and presentations where Evan Nappen gave his interpretation of those constantly changing gun laws.  I have also enrolled and subscribed to the US Law Shield program, for added insurance and peace-of-mind, for the potential pitfalls of gun ownership.  I am not an attorney and realize that most of what Nappen advocates usually errors on the conservative side of caution, which I understand and accept.  He is not always correct, (who is...?), but I respect his opinion and cautious approach to. NJ's gun laws.  While it is a PITA, why take unnecessary chances when traveling with firearms, whether in NJ or other states.  Until the SCOTUS makes more definitive rulings, I want to be prudent with my choices in how I plan to consciously comply with the current laws of NJ, as well as the other states I travel to.

FYI, when I have gone on multiple state road trips with any of my firearms, I am knowledgeable of and have consciously abided by the current FOPA laws governing interstate transportation of firearms.  Having obtained non-resident CCW permits for handguns from several states that allow me to CCW in approx. 32 states, I have on occasion, chosen to do so, where I was able to legally do so.

I subscribed to a “belt and suspenders” approach when transporting my selected handgun and ammunition, through those states.  For those trips, I made what I thought was a combined reasonable and practical decision to fully load the multiple magazines with hollow point bullets, as my self-defense ammo.  If I was in a state where I was not legally allowed to wear my holstered handgun while driving or was not allowed to CCW at all, I would do the following.  I would store the handgun and loaded magazines in separate 5.11 ballistic nylon zippered pouches that were each secured with small, TSA-approved combination locks.  I then placed both separate locked pouches, along with my holster, inside a locked hard sided, (aluminum) attaché case, that in turn had two combination locks.  I would then locate and store that locked hard sided case in the far back of my SUV.  Finally, I would pull closed, the horizontal vinyl cover/shade, so that nothing stored in that cargo area would be visible to anyone inside or outside the vehicle, nor accessible to anyone within the vehicle while actively driving.

Some folks would consider all of this as taking things overboard or being overly cautious.  Well it is a PITA, but doing this and taking all of these precautions, gave me and gives me, peace-of-mind as I navigate through the mine field of different and conflicting legal jurisdictions of different states.

AVB-AMG

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

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...