I always love these debates...

 

For the one asking about divorce and splitting of a collection, all that is required of the wife to take legal possession of her half in NJ is that she obtain her FPID. That's it.

 

Should we all tell our wives to grab the shotgun instead? Look out BG if mine does! It's 9 shots of #00 ready-to-run with 4 more in the carrier next to 4 more of shot and ball!!! 118 pound darling wife grew up hunting with grandpop.

there is NO transfer NEEDED because.. as the law states.. NOTHING in the law is to prevent a person from handling ANY gun in their home...

 

 

I'll tell you why I agree with this interpretation. When I moved here from Queens I called and spoke to the local police and asked what I needed to do with my handgun when moving to the new state. Theytold me I didn't have to do anything, not a damned thing.

 

"just bring it," he told me. I was so amazed and kept asking questions that he started to think I was a little weird. So if I can come to NJ with a handgun from out of state to my new house and the police could not care less if I had a FID or a PP for it, why whould they care if my wife had one either? In their eyes anyone could have moved into my house and had a pistol in their hands, no paper work needed.

 

Buying ammo would be impossible, but I can own that handgun without anyone caring.

... Should we all tell our wives to grab the shotgun instead? Look out BG if mine does! It's 9 shots of #00 ready-to-run with 4 more in the carrier next to 4 more of shot and ball!!! 118 pound darling wife grew up hunting with grandpop.

 

I'm glad I don't live next door to you.

I'm glad I don't live next door to you.

 

 

Yeah, Paul she's something else with a shotgun! She's also Irish and a redhead = DOOM!

Yeah, Paul she's something else with a shotgun! She's also Irish and a redhead = DOOM!

 

I got one of those also. I feel for you.

Let me throw this one in here for the last time.

 

The statute that exempts a Police Officer to take possession of a prohibited weapon is listed under 2C:39-3. The only other statute that exempts them from taking possession of a firearm that is not prohibited is under 2C:39-6. This is the same exemption statute that allows civilians to take possession as stated in 2C:39-6e. Without the exemptions stated for Police Officers, they can not legally acquire and possess firearms that they come in contact with during the performance of their job. This IS the exemption statute for acquiring AND possessing those firearms.

 

Have to dig this up again...

 

So 2C:39-6 provides for exemptions to 2C:39-5 which is "Unlawful possession of weapons".

 

You claim that 2C:39-6 allows for LE to take posession of weapons while they are on the job when those weapons are not believed to be prohibited (which is protected under 2C:39-3 g.). This would mean that they would be able to forgo 2C:58-3 rules on "sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire" firearms while performing their duties while on the job.

 

My argument is that 2C:39-6 exemptions only cover the possession of weapons, not "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring". These activities are all covered under 2C:58-3. 2C:39-6 exemptions refer only to carrying, possessing, and transporting. There is no mention of "acquiring" under 2C:39-6.

 

The bottom line is 2C:39-6 provides for exemptions from 2C:39-5 (Unlawful possession of weapons). My argument is that 2C:39-6 does not provide exemptions for "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" as these are covered under 2C:58-3 in that exact wording. Notice how 2C:58-3 makes no mention regarding possession, carrying, or transporting because they are covered by other statutes. Just like having a CCW permit allows you to posses and carry a firearm, ... not to purchase, receive, or acquire. There are different statutes that cover these activities.

 

If 2C:39-6 exemptions did cover "selling, giving, transfering, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring", then a cop could forgo the FID/Pistol Permit/COE process when purchasing or getting a gun as a gift while on the job performing their duties. Here's another example... two roomates living together both own pistols, they want to swap guns, so while in their dwelling they do so without the need to fill out any paperwork because they are covered under 2C:39-6 e. exemptions. Heck with that logic, they can then even take their newly acquired handguns to the range or their place of business with protections under the same exemptions. I think not.

 

IMO, for a cop to "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" a rifle or handgun that he/she feels is not prohibited while on duty, they would have to abide by all the rules under 2C:58-3 and its subsections governing the "selling, giving, transfering, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" of firearms.

Without reading the law for the 216th time, I ask this:

Which statute covers a Police Officer from "receiving, acquiring, taking possession" of a firearm from a person who is legally possessing it and which he is being arrested for an unrelated crime? 2C:39-3g exempts the officer from receiving and possessing a prohibited weapon. I am talking about a legally possessed firearm. One that is not prohibited. And while the officer is on duty.

Without reading the law for the 216th time, I ask this:

Which statute covers a Police Officer from "receiving, acquiring, taking possession" of a firearm from a person who is legally possessing it and which he is being arrested for an unrelated crime? 2C:39-3g exempts the officer from receiving and possessing a prohibited weapon. I am talking about a legally possessed firearm. One that is not prohibited. And while the officer is on duty.

 

If someone has a weapon on them while being arrested for a crime, in many cases that weapon would be confiscated as part of the evidence regardless of the crime for which they are being arrested for. This is especially true for NJ, as there are very limited circumstance for which a civilian could legally posses/carry a weapon.

 

This subsection provides for an extremely ambiguous loop-hole for LE... "because he believed it to be possessed illegally"

 

If it were one of the limited circumstances such as being arrested for a motor vehicle violation while driving to the range with a rifle being transported in the trunk. Is it not reasonable for the cop to "believe" it is "possessed illegally" therefore garnering him/her protection under 2C:39-3 g. That opens the door to tons of "what if's"... as in what if this person is not in legal possession of the gun. That is how our laws are set up, guilty until proven innocent in court.

 

What gun laws are there for civilians that give us protections because we "believe" something to be true. None that I know of.

 

 

 

2C:39-3

g.Exceptions. (1) Nothing in subsection a., b., c., d., e., f., j. or k. of this section shall apply to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or except as otherwise provided, to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty, provided that his possession of the prohibited weapon or device has been duly authorized under the applicable laws, regulations or military or law enforcement orders. Nothing in subsection h. of this section shall apply to any law enforcement officer who is exempted from the provisions of that subsection by the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall apply to the possession of any weapon or device by a law enforcement officer who has confiscated, seized or otherwise taken possession of said weapon or device as evidence of the commission of a crime or because he believed it to be possessed illegally by the person from whom it was taken, provided that said law enforcement officer promptly notifies his superiors of his possession of such prohibited weapon or device.

You are making the original possession illegal in your response. Let us assume the possession is LEGAL, i.e. drunk cop. What gives the working duty (hehe, I said duty) the right to take temporary possession. They are given the right to take possession of illegal firearms under 39-3g. I say they are given the right to take possession for lawfully possessed firearms under 39-6.

 

My head hurts.

There is no statute that allows a LEO on duty to take possession of a gun from someone who possesses it legally. Unless the gun is being taken as evidence or the cop "believes" the possessor is possessing it illegally, nothing gives the cop the ability to just take/confiscate the weapon, so they should be following 2C:58-3 and its subsections in that regard. There may be rules/procedures/statutes that override this regarding the impounding of a person's personal possessions during arrest that I'm not aware of.

 

If I'm in my backyard with my rifle (legal), and the police come and arrest me for securities fraud, they do not have the authority to take the rifle from my property. Of course they can demand that I place it down and put it in a safe place as part of the arrest procedure, but they cannot just take/impound/confiscate the rifle unless they believe I possess it illegally, or it is evidence in part of the crime that I am being arrested for.

Regarding the drunk cop example in which another cop wants to remove his weapon from him (possessed legally of course).... If they arrest the cop for disorderly conduct, public intoxication, etc... part of the arrest procedure would be to disarm the drunk cop and impound his personal belongings for keeping while he is in jail. I am also curious if the laws/rules around the handling of personal property have exemptions if part of that property is a firearm. I can use some help locating anything in the statutes to that regard. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything in the typical firearms statutes that would apply.

I was going to ask Evan Nappen this question last night at the NJ2AS meeting, but he beat me to it by speaking about it before I could even ask. He stated that under NJ law, it is considered an unlawful transfer for a wife to take possession of a HG belonging to her husband in their own home. He stated that the home is not a legally defined place where temporary transfers can take place between adults.

 

He went on to mention that a minor could under 2C:58-6.1 temporarily take possession of a HG in their home as long as the criteria is met.

 

 

2C:58-6.1

b.No person under the age of 18 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a firearm except as provided under paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection; and, unless authorized in connection with the performance of official duties under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, no person under the age of 21 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a handgun except under the following circumstances:

 

(1)In the actual presence or under the direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, as the case may be;

I was going to ask Evan Nappen this question last night at the NJ2AS meeting, but he beat me to it by speaking about it before I could even ask. He stated that under NJ law, it is considered an unlawful transfer for a wife to take possession of a HG belonging to her husband in their own home. He stated that the home is not a legally defined place where temporary transfers can take place between adults.

 

He went on to mention that a minor could under 2C:58-6.1 temporarily take possession of a HG in their home as long as the criteria is met.

 

 

2C:58-6.1

 

The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency, a legally recognized military organization or a rifle or pistol club which has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits to the superintendent a list of its members and if the firearm is received, possessed, carried and used for the sole purpose of target practice, trap or skeet shooting, or competition upon that firing range or instruction and training at any location.

 

Interpret the last 7 words. or instruction and training at any location The law implicitly implies that the temporary transfer is for purposes of using (shooting) the gun by the temporary transferee and this must be a range. If the purpose is instruction or training, that can be at any location.

 

With so many ors and ands it's tough to see what is a subset of the previous area. Just my opinion but Nappen seems to make the NJ gun laws seem even worse than they are.

I was going to ask Evan Nappen this question last night at the NJ2AS meeting, but he beat me to it by speaking about it before I could even ask. He stated that under NJ law, it is considered an unlawful transfer for a wife to take possession of a HG belonging to her husband in their own home. He stated that the home is not a legally defined place where temporary transfers can take place between adults.

 

He went on to mention that a minor could under 2C:58-6.1 temporarily take possession of a HG in their home as long as the criteria is met.

 

 

2C:58-6.1

 

when he made that statement.. did you inquire as to the law stating ANY gun in ones home.. did you ask him about someone defending themselves with someone elses gun in a life or death situation.. did you ask him if there were any instances of prosecution?

when he made that statement.. did you inquire as to the law stating ANY gun in ones home.. did you ask him about someone defending themselves with someone elses gun in a life or death situation.. did you ask him if there were any instances of prosecution?

 

No, he made the statement, and I left it at that. There were a lot of people vying for his attention. The example was with handguns, and he did give the one exception to the rule which is the temporary transfer to a minor as I posted above. To me that indicates that it is the only exception. He even jokingly said that in a HD situation it is legal to temporarily xfer your HG to a minor for SD, but not your adult spouse.

 

It would seem under our draconian gun laws, your life being in danger does not give you permission for temporary transfer. Of course, like most anything, it is up to the prosecutor to push the charges. That it is always a possibility in such situations I'd imagine the NJ prosecutor would not want on his/her record the imprisonment of a wife using her husbands HG in her own home to fend off some psycho killer.

No, he made the statement, and I left it at that. There were a lot of people vying for his attention. The example was with handguns, and he did give the one exception to the rule which is the temporary transfer to a minor as I posted above. To me that indicates that it is the only exception. He even jokingly said that in a HD situation it is legal to temporarily xfer your HG to a minor for SD, but not your adult spouse.

 

It would seem under our draconian gun laws, your life being in danger does not give you permission for temporary transfer. Of course, like most anything, it is up to the prosecutor to push the charges. That it is always a possibility in such situations I'd imagine the NJ prosecutor would not want on his/her record the imprisonment of a wife using her husbands HG in her own home to fend off some psycho killer.

 

 

well with him I will agree to disagree..

 

BUT even with that said I think your read on the situation is dead on.. where law and practice may not rest in the same.. meaning that even if it is technically against the law.. the likelihood of prosecution is slim to none..

 

thank you for taking the time to report back the discussion...

The person to whom a handgun, rifle or shotgun is temporarily transferred by the legal owner of the firearm or a licensed dealer may receive, possess, carry and use that handgun, rifle or shotgun, if the transfer is made upon a firing range operated by a licensed dealer, by a law enforcement agency, a legally recognized military organization or a rifle or pistol club which has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits to the superintendent a list of its members and if the firearm is received, possessed, carried and used for the sole purpose of target practice, trap or skeet shooting, or competition upon that firing range or instruction and training at any location.

 

Interpret the last 7 words. or instruction and training at any location The law implicitly implies that the temporary transfer is for purposes of using (shooting) the gun by the temporary transferee and this must be a range. If the purpose is instruction or training, that can be at any location.

 

With so many ors and ands it's tough to see what is a subset of the previous area. Just my opinion but Nappen seems to make the NJ gun laws seem even worse than they are.

 

There is a whole statute section on the temporary transfer of firearms for training purposes.. which defines what a training situation/circumstance is. In other words, you can't use the defense "I was just training, so I can temporarily xfer at any location" without proving you meet the criteria in 2C:58-3.2. You have to be a credentialed instructor, during the participation in a course, and in a place designated appropriate for training.

 

2C:58-3.2. Temporary transfer of firearm for training purposes

1. a. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-9, N.J.S.2C:58-2, N.J.S.2C:58-3 or any other statute to the contrary, a person who is certified as an instructor in the use, handling and maintenance of firearms by the Police Training Commission, the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife and the State Park Service in the Department of Environmental Protection, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army or by a recognized rifle or pistol association that certifies instructors may transfer a firearm temporarily in accordance with the terms of this section to a person participating in a training course for the use, handling and maintenance of firearms by the Police Training Commission, the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship or by a recognized rifle or pistol association that certifies instructors. The person to whom a firearm is transferred by a certified instructor in accordance with the terms of this section may receive, possess, carry and use the firearm temporarily during the sessions of the course for the purpose of training and participating in the course.

 

b.A transfer of a firearm under this section may be made only if:

 

(1)the transfer is made upon a firearms range or, if the firearm is unloaded, in an area designated and appropriate for the training;

 

(2)the transfer is made during the sessions of the firearms course for the sole purpose of participating in the course;

 

(3)the transfer is made for not more than eight consecutive hours in any 24-hour period; and

 

(4)the transferred firearm is used and handled only in the actual presence and under the direct supervision of the instructor.

 

c.The transfer permitted by this section may be made whether or not the person participating in the course holds a firearms license, firearms purchaser identification card or a handgun purchase permit. However, an instructor shall not knowingly transfer a firearm under the terms of this section to a person who does not meet the qualifications set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3 for obtaining or holding a firearms purchaser identification card or a handgun purchase permit, and a person who knows that he does not meet such qualifications shall not receive the transferred firearm under the terms of this section.

 

d.No firearm shall be transferred or received under the provisions of this section for purposes described in section 1 of P.L.1983, c.229 (C.2C:39-14).

well with him I will agree to disagree..

 

BUT even with that said I think your read on the situation is dead on.. where law and practice may not rest in the same.. meaning that even if it is technically against the law.. the likelihood of prosecution is slim to none..

 

thank you for taking the time to report back the discussion...

 

You got it Vlad. I know we butt heads at times, and many many of these hypothetical discussions are just that.. and comes down to personal opinion and subjective thinking. I respect everyone's opinion no matter how argumentative things get.

 

I know I tend to read into things, and many times my interpretations do not come out to be what we want to hear. It is my theory that getting into the head of the enemy per-say allows me to better understand what we are up against in NJ. When our idiotic gun laws are stretched to the limits of their interpretations, their true ridiculousness comes to light.

You got it Vlad. I know we butt heads at times, and many many of these hypothetical discussions are just that.. and comes down to personal opinion and subjective thinking. I respect everyone's opinion no matter how argumentative things get.

 

I know I tend to read into things, and many times my interpretations do not come out to be what we want to hear. It is my theory that getting into the head of the enemy per-say allows me to better understand what we are up against in NJ. When our idiotic gun laws are stretched to the limits of their interpretations, their true ridiculousness comes to light.

 

 

just for the record.. for someone who will not live in NJ much longer (me) I just care a LOT about your laws.. rights.. and the level that you guys get screwed.. so when I argue.. it is out of passion for YOUR rights.. it is NEVER anything personal.. my ONLY gripe with us as a gun community is that I think sometimes we let ourselves get consumed by guilt.. and made to feel paranoid about every little thing.. and there is no point to that..

If you stop an intruder and take his illegal stolen handgun till the police arrive is that an illegal transfer? NO because you can carry ANY firearm in your home... ANY firearm...

Using your logic , if I bring a HG illegally over to your house, then hand it to you in your house. You can now legally keep that HG in your home forever because after all it is ANY gun.

 

Keeping on that logic, you can now travel with that HG to the range and back under exemptions. You have just defacto aquired a HG without a CoE or PP.

 

I maintain that posessing/carrying and receiving/aquiring are covered by two different statutes.

Using your logic , if I bring a HG illegally over to your house, then hand it to you in your house. You can now legally keep that HG in your home forever because after all it is ANY gun. Keeping on that logic, you can now travel with that HG to the range and back under exemptions. You have just defacto aquired a HG without a CoE or PP. I maintain that posessing/carrying and receiving/aquiring are covered by two different statutes.

 

I agree. What I don't agree with is a transfer where the possession of the firearm originally, is legal, and then, by statue, the possession of the firearm after the transfer, is legal, somehow being an illegal transfer. That **** doesn't make sense. But then again, this is NJ, the laws rarely do.

Same could go for if i brought a rifle to your house legally (i have a FID), then gave you the rifle and left. With the same logic because the rifle is ANY gun, you can keep it in your house, and travel with it under exemptions if you didnt have an FID. The exempted locations where you can "possess and carry any gun" are not magical places where all other statutes don't count namely 2C:58-3 and its subsections. You first have to receive or aquire the said "any" gun legally before you can "possess and carry" it in exempted locations.

Good point. Now you have me second guessing myself. Just goes to point out the absolutely asinine laws in NJ. In almost any other state this wouldn't even have merit as a discussion, nevertheless be something even thought of as illegal. I was going to say how your example is a different situation (as it is), but the fact I can't distinguish it based on the statues, well, it speaks for itself. I have one thought, either way. But that word gets censored on this forum.

I let my wife hold my "gun" whenever she wants, whether it's in the house or outside. Although it doesn't happen often, when it does, it feels nice. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you're talking about firearms. My bad.

If I hand someone a document to look at, am I transferring ownership of it to them? Is even a transfer taking place? This person would mearly be possessing it. If a firearm is handed to someone, or if the firearm is taken from someone, this is not a transfer. Possession exists without a transfer.

Shhhhh, how dare you utter words of reason and logic in a NJ gun laws thread!

If I hand someone a document to look at, am I transferring ownership of it to them? Is even a transfer taking place? This person would mearly be possessing it. If a firearm is handed to someone, or if the firearm is taken from someone, this is not a transfer. Possession exists without a transfer.

 

I agree.. a transfer is a specific process..

 

does the LAW come out and say SPECIFICALLY under temporary transfer that if you go to a gun shop the owner can transfer the gun for you to hold and look at? or is that also an illegal transfer..

while gun shop is an exempted location that is for transport to.. not necessarily exempt from all rules..

temporary transfers may occur to hunt.. or at licensed ranges.. but I dont see a single mention of "gun shop".. yet we ALL know that a firearms dealer can hand you a gun and you can hold it.. in a gun shop? how is that not an illegal transfer.. as Paul stated.. "transferring a gun" "temporary transfer" are terms by which an individual may come in contact with a gun.. but they are not the ONLY instances..

 

Same could go for if i brought a rifle to your house legally (i have a FID), then gave you the rifle and left. With the same logic because the rifle is ANY gun, you can keep it in your house, and travel with it under exemptions if you didnt have an FID. The exempted locations where you can "possess and carry any gun" are not magical places where all other statutes don't count namely 2C:58-3 and its subsections. You first have to receive or aquire the said "any" gun legally before you can "possess and carry" it in exempted locations.

 

you can't "give me the rifle" you would need a COE.. because that is transferring me the rifle.. but you can bring it over.. and if someone broke in while you spend the night.. and you were dying on the floor and I used YOUR gun to save us.. would I go to jail.. for not filling out a COE?

 

answer this.. and why..

think about what I said.. a criminal breaks into your house.. with a stolen unregistered gun.. serial numbers filed off.. you are lucky enough to get the gun away from him and he runs away.. you are now in your home holding said gun.. according to you.. you are about to go to jail for illegal possession .. unless of course there is something protecting you in that moment..

 

I am sure if you illegally owned a sawed off shotgun

you would get charged.. but the charge.. would likely be an AW charge or something similar..

Using your logic , if I bring a HG illegally over to your house, then hand it to you in your house. You can now legally keep that HG in your home forever because after all it is ANY gun.

 

Keeping on that logic, you can now travel with that HG to the range and back under exemptions. You have just defacto aquired a HG without a CoE or PP.

 

I maintain that posessing/carrying and receiving/aquiring are covered by two different statutes.

 

no there are additional laws broken..

if I am now OWNING the handgun.. as in retaining it when you leave.. we have illegally transfered a gun.. the way the gun got there is illegal to begin with and you will be charged accordingly..

my wife on the other hand lives there.. so my guns are already there.. thus not illegal..

answer this.. and why..

think about what I said.. a criminal breaks into your house.. with a stolen unregistered gun.. serial numbers filed off.. you are lucky enough to get the gun away from him and he runs away.. you are now in your home holding said gun.. according to you.. you are about to go to jail for illegal possession .. unless of course there is something protecting you in that moment..

 

I am sure if you illegally owned a sawed off shotgun

you would get charged.. but the charge.. would likely be an AW charge or something similar..

 

For the first part, I do believe there is a clause in the statutes that grants you immunity from any criminal charges for possessing a prohibited weapon, or from possessing a weapon outside of the exemptions, provided that you came into possession of the weapon by removing it from an agressor. However, I can't seem to find the statute at the moment.

 

As for the second part, you are correct. They could not charge you under 2C:39-5c (1) or (2), Unlawful possesion of a rifle or shotgun (1), or Unlawful possesion of a loaded rifle or shotgun (2), because 2C:39-6e states that 2C:39-5c does not apply in one's home. However, you could, and will, be charged under 2C:39-3b Prohibited Weapons - Sawed-off shotguns.

 

Either way both are 3rd degree crimes, so you will probably get the same sentence.