Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I've never heard it considered an add on charge by any LEO on this board, current or former.

Maybe you never read it, but in past discussions about some people’s “concerns” about traveling even to from the range with hollow points, it has been stated by a former LEO here, that they never heard of anyone being charged with possession of them without another more serious charge. 
 

If you don’t want to believe it, nothing I can do about it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, njpilot said:

Maybe you never read it, but in past discussions about some people’s “concerns” about traveling even to from the range with hollow points, it has been stated by a former LEO here, that they never heard of anyone being charged with possession of them without another more serious charge. 
 

If you don’t want to believe it, nothing I can do about it.

I don't doubt an LEO would have said that, but that doesn't translate to being an "add on charge". Thats more of just an observation than how the law is applied. 

How often are cops finding hollow point bullets on "law abiding" citizens in this state? vs. how many are illegally carrying weapons with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the asshat cops who charged someone in this state for having a pistol grip on his pump action shotgun. 

I'd still love to know why these cops thought it a good idea to fuck this guy over so hard.. If it were another cop, they wouldn't have even asked to see his gun or ammo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

This reminds me of the asshat cops who charged someone in this state for having a pistol grip on his pump action shotgun. 

If I remember correctly that guy got a good settlement after suing the police who wrongly arrested him. Hopefully he bought a bunch of guns with that money 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When driving to/from the range, I often think through/struggle with what I would do if stopped by a LEO. Eg 1) be my normal totally open transparent self, or 2) keep my mouth shut, invoke my right to have an attorney present before any questions, and give no consent for a search.

Incidents like this clearly lead me to follow #2;even at the risk of exposing myself to intimidation for invoking my rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

When driving to/from the range, I often think through/struggle with what I would do if stopped by a LEO. Eg 1) be my normal totally open transparent self, or 2) keep my mouth shut, invoke my right to have an attorney present before any questions, and give no consent for a search.

Incidents like this clearly lead me to follow #2;even at the risk of exposing myself to intimidation for invoking my rights.

KMS.  (Keep mouth shut.)

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 11:53 AM, kc17 said:

I'm usually not big on lawsuits, but this guy should own the town when he's done.

 

should go after every officer involved in that arrest in any way. both personally and professionally

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldguysrule649 said:

When driving to/from the range, I often think through/struggle with what I would do if stopped by a LEO. Eg 1) be my normal totally open transparent self, or 2) keep my mouth shut, invoke my right to have an attorney present before any questions, and give no consent for a search.

Incidents like this clearly lead me to follow #2;even at the risk of exposing myself to intimidation for invoking my rights.

Cops are not your friends.. even tho you may have friends that are cops.

 

It's common practice to never give more information than an officer is asking for, just dont lie.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 3 or 4 NJ gun cases in the SCOTUS rolls it's like NJ is daring them to try to pass one and see what happens.

Another real legal question I'm clueless about. When the NYC case got certioari and the NJ  may/shall issue proceeds. When both cases and the court of Appeals sent them up to the Supreme court, the 2nd and 3rd courts were more liberal. Well now Trump's justices have caught up and both have more conservative justices. If Scotus sends the cases back down, could the more conservative courts pass in our favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 6:32 PM, JackDaWack said:

...I'd still love to know why these cops thought it a good idea to fuck this guy over so hard.....

I was thinking about this aspect. I (admittedly selfishly) would like to think there was some type of history or bad blood between the victim and the cop(s) that impacted how things went down that day. Thinking that way is better than believing I could become a victim of a criminal with a badge as easily as this guy did.

I am not in anyway saying this was a justifiable arrest or the victim deserves what has happened to him. Nothing he could have done justifies the bogus arrest and lack of immediate dismissal of the charges and expungement of the same from his record.

I am being intentional in referring to Mr Twyne as a victim, because based on the facts known to me at this time, he is a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was talking to an ex-armored car guard. He mentioned that the carry permits they are given have restrictions. They do not allow the owner of the permit to carry any time. Many times they are restricted to on-duty only. And that sometimes they must store them at the office and can't carry them home.

So I'd like to know whether he has any such restrictions and what they are. That could have a lot to do with the first charge of illegally carrying.

Share this post


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

So I was talking to an ex-armored car guard. He mentioned that the carry permits they are given have restrictions. They do not allow the owner of the permit to carry any time. Many times they are restricted to on-duty only. And that sometimes they must store them at the office and can't carry them home.

So I'd like to know whether he has any such restrictions and what they are. That could have a lot to do with the first charge of illegally carrying.

That’s similar to my curiosity posted yesterday.  
 

That said, I’m not so sure he was carrying if he was heading from work to home - believe that carrying a firearm from one location to another is legit. It’s not like he was shopping in the mall. Of course it wasn’t unloaded in the trunk, and one thing leads to another... but are the ramifications of incorrectly transporting the same as other actions with a firearm?

He could have turned himself in, been in the wrong, and then had the HP “add on”. Pure speculation at this point.  Ridiculous all the same. These laws weren’t intended for this person, even if they were written in bad faith to harm 2A.  And that amplifies the stupidity of the whole thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 6:16 PM, njpilot said:

Maybe you never read it, but in past discussions about some people’s “concerns” about traveling even to from the range with hollow points, it has been stated by a former LEO here, that they never heard of anyone being charged with possession of them without another more serious charge. 
 

If you don’t want to believe it, nothing I can do about it.

I think you're talking about me and I'll reiterate my experience.

I was Federal but worked with a lot of state and local LEOs.  When the hollow point law was passed back in the 90s there were plenty of arrests where possession of hollow points was the only charge. Most of them were thrown out.  Those that were prosecuted were the defendant took an easy out and pled to a misdemeanor charge. I do know of a case where the possession of hollowpoints was also charged with possession of stolen property.  He was fully prodecuted.

@PK90 is correct. YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF HOLLOWPOINTS AS THE ONLY CRIME.

The charge for hollowpoints has become "as a matter of practice" an add on charge with another crime.  Last time I looked I could only find one case where the person was charged with possession of hollowpoints as the only charge.  That was 2002 IIRC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 3:09 PM, PDM said:

We all huff and puff and preach to the choir when we hear these news reports because we are all so frustrated.  But this case really is the perfect storm.  First, the hollow point restriction is even more idiotic than your average NJ gun law.  Any person allowed to carry in NJ -- basically just retired cops and security guards -- is much more effective and much less of a risk to bystanders if he carries hollow points.  This isn't even arguable.  Second, the critical duty he was carrying is explicitly not deemed hollow point by the NJSP.  Third, he was following the law and being a good citizen in every single way: had a permit, coming back from work with gun stored properly, went out of his way to inform the police he was in possession of a firearm.  Fourth, he is black and as others have mentioned I think there is probably a good chance that he was profiled.

I suspect this case will be dropped quickly.  If not, I expect, hope and pray that he successfully sues the town for millions and wins a wrongful prosecution, civil rights case and anything else that sticks.

I don't know all the details but from what has been presented this guy is guilty of nothing.  I suspect, based on the information availabl, the charges will be dismissed.

The defendant in this case should not be expecting a bazillion dollars in a civil suit.  If the insurance company pays his legal expenses, expunged his record, and he gets his job back how much has he lost?  He'll get something extra but not millions.

Keep in mind we really don't know the whole story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PK90 said:

Lying, by itself, is not a crime. Lying, to cover up a crime, is a crime.

Lying to a Fed under any circumstances is a crime.

Ask Martha Stewart about that. Keep in mind she was prosecuted where James Comey was the US Attorney.

4 hours ago, Greenday said:

So I was talking to an ex-armored car guard. He mentioned that the carry permits they are given have restrictions. They do not allow the owner of the permit to carry any time. Many times they are restricted to on-duty only. And that sometimes they must store them at the office and can't carry them home.

So I'd like to know whether he has any such restrictions and what they are. That could have a lot to do with the first charge of illegally carrying.

That may have been the policy of the company that guy worked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 11:56 AM, Underdog said:

 

AND, as a armed-guard I would think just with many LEOs and court officials, he may have a justifiable need to have tinting on his windows to further protect him with his line of work.  

What is going on in Roselle Park?

 

OK.  There is no justifiable need for any LEO to have dark tint.  There is another LEO that posts regularly on this forum that said his chief would write a ticket to anyone with too dark tint.  The only exemption I know of was for AGENCY vehicles used for surveillance.  This was a thing younger guys pushed and is really not necessary IMO.  Keep in mind I worked for a Federal agency and we could drive around with no insurance, no plates, no inspection, on bald tires and no lights if we wanted to.

I have no idea what's going on in Roselle Park.  I lived there for a couple of years back in the 70s but don't know what's going on now.

Back then, I was a Municipal LEO.  I grabbed a teenager who was chunking ice at bus windows breaking them.  I was told by the Roselle Park Police I might get an assault charge filed against me.  I heard from the kid's mother.  She said if I saw him doing stuff, smack the shit out of him.  Never heard anything else.  Keep in mind, I was a cop then so all this cops can do anything is bs.

This was 1975.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 6:32 PM, JackDaWack said:

 

I'd still love to know why these cops thought it a good idea to fuck this guy over so hard.. If it were another cop, they wouldn't have even asked to see his gun or ammo...

Well yeah, if he were a cop he can legally have a gun and hollowpoints.

Share this post


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

I think you're talking about me and I'll reiterate my experience.

I was Federal but worked with a lot of state and local LEOs.  When the hollow point law was passed back in the 90s there were plenty of arrests where possession of hollow points was the only charge. Most of them were thrown out.  Those that were prosecuted were the defendant took an easy out and pled to a misdemeanor charge. I do know of a case where the possession of hollowpoints was also charged with possession of stolen property.  He was fully prodecuted.

@PK90 is correct. YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF HOLLOWPOINTS AS THE ONLY CRIME.

The charge for hollowpoints has become "as a matter of practice" an add on charge with another crime.  Last time I looked I could only find one case where the person was charged with possession of hollowpoints as the only charge.  That was 2002 IIRC.

Yes GRIZ, I was referring to the statement you’ve made in the past about this subject, just didn’t want to put your name out. 

As I said in my original post, “so much for the saying”, but some people who don’t comprehend the English language too well, were asking “where in the statutes does it say ‘add on charge’ “ and other comments about the statutes. I never said it was law or even unwritten policy, just that you had stated it was normally not an only charge, but an added on secondary charge in most cases.

Thanks for posting.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, njpilot said:

Yes GRIZ, I was referring to the statement you’ve made in the past about this subject, just didn’t want to put your name out. 

As I said in my original post, “so much for the saying”, but some people who don’t comprehend the English language too well, were asking “where in the statutes does it say ‘add on charge’ “ and other comments about the statutes. I never said it was law or even unwritten policy, just that you had stated it was normally not an only charge, but an added on secondary charge in most cases.

Thanks for posting.

 

In case some are confused what this discussion about an "add on charge" is regarding:

It has been said over many years on this board and others that in NJ there is a law that stipulates that in circumstances when you are otherwise allowed to carry hollow points, if you are committing any crime while in possession of them, your possession of them becomes illegal and now you can be charged with possession of hollow point ammunition.

 

 

Examples:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can run someone over on purpose while going to the range to shoot my hollowpoint ammo. Can I be charged with illegal possession? NO.

ETA: One can only be charged of illegally possessing HPs if they are outside the exemptions, PER THE LAW. There is no such thing as an add-on charge. It's like stopping someone for driving with a headlamp out, and you find that they were drunk. Charge them with DUI and the equipment violation. If not drunk, or no other violation is there, let them go. Is the headlamp an add-on charge? NO.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PK90 said:

I can run someone over on purpose while going to the range to shoot my hollowpoint ammo. Can I be charged with illegal possession? NO.

ETA: One can only be charged of illegally possessing HPs if they are outside the exemptions, PER THE LAW. There is no such thing as an add-on charge. It's like stopping someone for driving with a headlamp out, and you find that they were drunk. Charge them with DUI and the equipment violation. If not drunk, or no other violation is there, let them go. Is the headlamp an add-on charge? NO.

You gonna go to be acused of not understaing the lenguage englishe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you guys are saying, I believe "add on" is used in this case as "de facto" in that while you can certainly be charged for hollow point possession on its own, it is in most circumstances charged in accompaniment of other more fundamental firearm offenses that brought the attention of the officers in the first place.  They found the hollow points because you committed another crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the articles regarding this case are claiming that Twyne wasn't carrying hollow point ammo because an FAQ on the NJSP website claims they aren't and Nappen states the website says they're allowed along with stating "They're not hollow. They're filled."

I can't find a NJ statute that backs that claim up. I'm curious if a judge won't give a damn what their website claims and go strictly by the letter of the law and believe that filling a hollow point does not stop it from being a hollow point.

I know the DMV of CA disagrees with the CHP regarding the legality of lane splitting. Regardless of the authority of one making a claim, the law is the law. If the charges don't get dropped, I'm very curious of what decision a judge will make regarding the legality of filled hollow point ammo.

 

Share this post


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

I can't find a NJ statute that backs that claim up.

There are two common beliefs on why NJ Statutes are so poorly written and leave so much gray area. 1: the people that write the Statutes have no clue about the subject matter. 2: they intentionally write them so innocent people can be jammed up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This also goes back to being in possession of firearm is illegal unless you meet an exemption.

So you start out being a criminal and have to prove you're not. There is no innocent until proven guilty in NJ with regard to firearms (or any other "weapon" for that case).

I need to take down a diseased limb on a tree I have. To do so in a safer manner I want to get a rope looped around the top to insure it goes the way I want it to and not into my shed. Easiest way is with fishing line tied to a bolt/nut/rock and a slingshot. Too bad slingshots are illegal in NJ!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kc17 said:

There are two common beliefs on why NJ Statutes are so poorly written and leave so much gray area. 1: the people that write the Statutes have no clue about the subject matter. 2: they intentionally write them so innocent people can be jammed up.

I am going to go with both, but will add two more beliefs that are not in a gray area....  The politicians are not just ignorant but are utterly stupid, and like power just a little too much.  It is sad when all they way up to the elitist gov. there is no justice or common sense beginning with the officer(s) and the DA.    

What is the charge besides hollow-brained legislation pertaining to the firearm?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kc17 said:

So you start out being a criminal and have to prove you're not. There is no innocent until proven guilty in NJ with regard to firearms (or any other "weapon" for that case).

...

Too bad slingshots are illegal in NJ!

 

No, you are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution would have to make its case for guilt. Juries aren't instructed any differently in firearms cases.

 

Slingshots are legal with "an explainable, lawful purpose." I don't know of anyone getting harassed for using slingshots for target practice in NJ.

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...