limaxray

Sigh... Please watch the video and take some time to research and understand why you should never talk to an LEO in such a situation. Please also don't take my point out of context. He is doing his job, and part of that job is to convince you to waive your rights so he may enforce the law. Those questions are there solely to probe you for any additional crimes - answering them (in the context of having a firearm in your vehicle) gains you NOTHING. Don't get me wrong, I would never fault an LEO for this, but you need to realize his interests run completely orthogonal to your own. In this situation, an LEO is NEVER your friend and can not help you - he is prohibited by law from doing so. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to protect your self interests. Look, we have a set of constitutionally protected rights - specifically those protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments in this case - for the very purpose of protecting us from tyrannical regulations such as we have in NJ. You have these rights, use them. Waiving them for the sole purpose of not hurting an LEO's feelings or some misguided belief it will make your life easier is plain foolish. And again, my point isn't to speak poorly of LEOs - I personally don't hold them responsible for merely doing their jobs - the problem is a set of broken laws that infringe on our rights and freedoms.

I've gotten a few tickets in NY - do exactly what the LEO suggested and go to court and talk to the prosecutor. In my experience, compared to NJ, they are really good about this type of thing in NY and will usually knock it down to a non-moving violation or at least a minor infraction. I got a ticket for doing 50 in a 30 and operating an uninspected vehicle and got it knocked down to a $150 parking ticket. Another time, I got hit for doing 80 in a 65 and got a 'failure to abide by traffic control device'. I think this was a $85 ticket with 2 points. NJ, on the other hand, only lets you plead to 'unsafe driving' (or something along those lines) which is a $400 fine with no points, but you can only do it once in a certain period of time. Incidentally, I think almost every time I've been pulled over and given a ticket I've been told to do this by the LEO. If you have the time, it is almost always worthwhile to go to court and talk to the prosecutor. At least in NY that is - my luck in NJ hasn't been so great. As for the story posted by the OP - I feel this is very tragic and down right heart breaking. What is probably a beautiful firearm and priceless piece of history will be destroyed because of this thug. I'd be willing to offer my home to foster this poor, abused weapon.

I will have to concede that you are correct - but only out of a technicality! I never realized there were actually states that didn't allow you to shoot an attacker in your own home. I suppose you learn something new everyday, but it doesn't change the fact NJ offers little protection for defending yourself. You still face the burden of proving you were in imminent danger of serious harm or death, and the civil liability can leave you homeless in the end. I still feel these are critical points that need to change for an effective castle doctrine.

I think you've totally misunderstood my position. I suggest you take the time to reread my previous posts as well as watch the video posted by kenw. The job of the officer is not to determine if you are within the law or not - that is the job of the court system - if there is the slightest bit of doubt, you go to jail so the court can decide. I never suggested pursuing the absurd suggestion you exampled. Clearly being down right stupid to the police officer isn't going to help you and that is not at all what I said. Obviously, you'd want to cooperate as far as the traffic stop goes, but answering any questions outside the scope of the stop is a bad practice. If you don't have your weapons in the vehicle, how much you answer is up to you - I typically avoid answering where I am going simply because it's none of his (or the government's) business. As long as you're polite and respectful, it shouldn't be a problem. If you do have weapons in the car, you should never, ever answer any more than the absolute minimum. For example, the LEO asks you where you are going and you reply 'XYZ range', you may have just given him probable cause that you have potentially illegal weapons in your car. If you then proceed to actually admit you have firearms in the car, he WILL remove you from the vehicle and search your car, no consent needed. Your firearms may very well be 100% within the law, BUT THAT IS NOT FOR THE LEO TO DECIDE. He will arrest you, take you to jail where you will sit until you post bail or the court decides the issue. The law is interpreted by lawyers, not police officers, and explaining the law up one side and down the other is NEVER going to change the fact that you're spending the night in jail. Instead, if you politely refuse to answer where you are going or that you have firearms he will have no grounds to conduct a search (assuming you don't have ammo or crack pipes rolling around on the floor). Sure he can take you out of the car and bust your balls about it, but he can't search the car or otherwise discover you have firearms in the vehicle. You might get a ticket, you might lose an hour of your day, but in the end, the LEO has no evidence that you have a firearm and you'll be going home that night. Again, let me repeat - mere possession of a firearm in the state of NJ is likely grounds for arrest. You should never hand them a reason to arrest you, and there is absolutely no reason to EVER admit to having a firearm. By law, the police can NOT do anything to help you in this situation - it is up to the courts to decide if you are within your rights. Anything you say can, and will be used against you, but nothing can be used to help you. I didn't just pull this advice from behind - any lawyer and most LEOs will tell you the exact same thing. And just to be clear, this is a result of NJ's incredibly abusive firearm legislation. You effectively have no rights to a firearm in this state. Before the McDonald decision, you simply did not have a constitutionally protected right to arms, and it will take time before this right is reflected in practice.

I agree that is the natural interpretation of the law; my only point was that I can see where one of our fine courts could imply a duty to retreat within the home. Do you know if there is any case law in this regard? Our state courts have a reputation of creatively reading between the lines. That said, NJ most certainly DOES NOT have a 'castle doctrine' as it is usually defined. 2C:3-4 is very clear that you need to have a reasonable belief that you face serious bodily harm or death. With a castle doctrine, you only need to show a reasonable belief they wish to commit a felony. Castle doctrine also includes immunity to civil lawsuit - I don't believe we have any such immunity in this state. For example, with a castle doctrine, you can legally shoot someone as they attempt to climb into a window. In NJ, not only do you need to wait for them to climb into the window, you need to wait to understand their demands and make sure you can't meet their demands without incurring injury or death. And after you shoot the guy to defend your life, you are still liable to him or his estate for damages. NJ is in every way hostile to the right to self defense.

No offense, but if you are so willing to let a guy with a badge and gun bully you out of your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, I would say that very clearly is living in fear of the government and its actors. Also remember, after they drop their nonsense charges, they have absolutely zero liability for your damages and you have zero standing to challenge the laws you were arrested under. The only person who loses is you. You can save yourself all this trouble by simply refusing to incriminate yourself. You have the right to do so - use it or lose it.

I was always under the impression that we have no protection from either criminal or civil liability for shooting an intruder in our own homes - thus no castle doctrine. Now this does beg the question - how does one effectively retreat in your home? Unless you're wealthy enough to have a panic room in your house, I can't imagine any way you could seriously retreat in your home from an intruder that intends to cause you harm. Does this mean you have to go through the motions of running into a room, locking the door, and waiting for the BG to kick the door down before you can open fire? Or can you just cut to the point and shoot the guy when he refuses to leave and instead decides to advance? And not to totally threadjack - any idea where a copy of their brief can be found? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I doubt it has any valuable substance, but their dribble is always good for a few chuckles.

Hey man, whatever works for you. I just hope you understand the gravity of the state of affairs in NJ. If you posses a firearm - especially a pistol without a carry permit - following the law to the T will not protect you from being arrested and hauled off to jail. You have a pistol unloaded and locked in your trunk on the way to the range - you go to jail. You have an unloaded and locked long gun with FID and the LEO has the slightest bit of uncertainty - you go to jail. You are guilty until proven innocent - that is not a joke, it is a fact of life as a gun owner in NJ. You very well may go free in the end, but not after going though a horrible experience and losing a large chunk of change, your firearms, and possibly your job and future income. There is a whole list of law-abiding, responsible people in this state who have experienced this first hand - why risk adding yourself to this list by incriminating yourself to an LEO? Just remember, the firearm laws in NJ are simply not rational and are explicitly designed to be hostile to law-abiding gun owners - when dealing with an LEO, their first and foremost job is to enforce these irrational and hostile laws and not to promote some ideal of justice.

That hasn't been my experience. I make every point to show the officer respect to the point of profusely apologizing for not cooperating, and generally the officer returns the respect in kind. If he wants to be a douche about it and not show me respect in return, then I have no problem wasting his time. Go ahead, get the K9, make me wait in the cold - I don't care, I have nothing to hide and never consenting away my rights is more important. If he finds something that he thinks is an arrestable offence, at least the law will be on my side. I don't think the majority of LEOs want to waste their time to play Gestapo though. Understand, I do make a point to make small talk and to be as friendly as possible. The key here is to show respect, and you most certainly can show your respect without consenting away your rights. For a typical traffic stop without firearms in your vehicle, you can take your chances and be as verbose as the officer wishes if you so choose. Admitting to firearms in your vehicle though is just a horrible, horrible idea. You will go to jail, you will not pass go, nor will you collect $200. This is the advice I have received from several police officers I know - their SOP on firearms is automatic arrest, no questions asked. Now I used to be of a similar mindset - no reason not to help these guys out doing their job - until it bit me in the a**. The last time I cooperated, I spent a day in jail, lost 2 rifles, and spent $15k in lawyer fees - all for a bogus felony complaint that didn't so much as result in an indictment. Everything you say can, and will, be used against you - even if you think it is totally innocent. But hey, maybe my tin foil hat is a little too tight...

I highly recommend taking the time to watch the video posted by kenw - it is an excellent talk and contains extremely valuable information. I have personally made all my friends and family watch this very talk. And for the sake of beating a dead horse, NEVER admit to having a gun in your car (or anything else for that matter). Don't lie, just politely refuse to answer his questions and request to be on your way. I refuse to answer anything other than the bare minimum questions - I won't even disclose where I'm going if they ask, regardless if I have firearms in the car or not. My rights are more important to me than a couple hundred bucks for a traffic ticket. If you admit to having a firearm in your car in NJ, the next question isn't going to be 'where are you going', it will be 'please step out of the vehicle' shortly followed by 'please place your hands behind your back'. That you were going to/from the range is an affirmative defense against the felony charge of criminal possession of a weapon that you will face. Remember, in PRoNJ, you are guilty until proven innocent (if the judge allows it that is). So, LEO: Do you have any weapons in the vehicle? You: No (lie) of course not - WRONG You: Yes, I'm going to the range - WRONG You: Sure is nice weather we're having officer. How about them Jets? - CORRECT You: I'm sorry officer, but as a proud American who greatly appreciates all that has been given to defend our rights and freedoms, I will have to respectfully refuse to answer your questions as I never consent away my rights. Am I free to go or am I under arrest? - CORRECT In my short time here, there seems to be a good amount of misunderstanding on how to properly handle a traffic stop - perhaps someone should make a sticky as this is extremely valuable knowledge if you appreciate your freedom.

I honestly feel this is the least compelling filing from the anti-2A side I've read yet (not that any of them have been particularly compelling). The level of blatant dishonesty and complete miss-the-bus-ism is laughable. My favorite part is the repeated reference to 19th century court decisions upholding bans on concealed carry - without providing the context that such bans were only allowed because open carry was permitted. The best part about it is these very same cases were addressed in SAF's filing. On that same token, they repeatedly reference concealed carry specifically, when, as SAF has made very clear, this is about carry in general. Oh, and I laughed out loud when they claimed a rational basis standard of review was warranted. This was clearly dismissed under Heller/McDonald. Please guys, stop smoking crack when writing this stuff - I know it's popular down there in Trenton. And of course, as others have pointed out, their overall logic is clearly flawed and irrational. Of course, I can see the court ruling to dismiss on some equally absurd claim. With any luck, we'll see the definition of 'to bear' on the docket for the next term of the SCOTUS.

I would seriously consider getting a lawyer ASAP. This is not the time to cheap out - the potential for lost wages if you face a conviction will greatly exceed the cost of an attorney. Just because the cops say you violated the AWB, doesn't mean the DA isn't going to try to hit you with something else. Remember, Brian Aitken was sentenced to 7 years in prison for having legally possessed firearms locked in his trunk - we're not dealing with rational legislation here. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but in the future, don't leave anything in plain view that can give an LEO probable cause. And if they ask you if you have a gun, you do NOT have to answer them. Ignore the question, change the subject, or straight up claim the 5th (just don't lie) - NEVER, EVER admit to having a gun in your car or on your person. Refusing to answer their questions is your right and not probable cause for a search. Just give them your documents and ask for your ticket. Of course always refuse to consent to any searches, regardless of what they claim. Even if they say they have probable cause to search your vehicle, you'll at least have grounds for an illegal search claim. In this type of situation, the police are NEVER your friend - their job is to enforce the law and put you in jail. Always keep your mouth shut and refuse any searches. The 4th and 5th Amendments are there to protect you, don't freely piss them away.