http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=40041640&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advquery=2C%3a39-1%20%20Definitions&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={1A38}&softpage=Doc_Frame_Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=34&y=12&zz=

 

OMG I just got a headache! You have to be a lawyer just to understand and follow this crap!

 

I don't see anything for civilians to be exempted to transport HP rounds except to and from where you bought them and a range.

 

My head is still spinning, lol!

This. Without intent, there is no crime.

 

Tell that to Pelleteri. He had no intention of possessing an assault weapon.

Tell that to Pelleteri. He had no intention of possessing an assault weapon.

 

Details of the case? There's no real intent in possession, it's more knowledge. If you know you're in possession of something, and you know it's illegal, you're committing the crime. Remember, ignorance is not an excuse. So you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't know it was illegal, but you can in some instances (depending on the circumstances) not know that you were in possession of it.

Details of the case? There's no real intent in possession, it's more knowledge. If you know you're in possession of something, and you know it's illegal, you're committing the crime. Remember, ignorance is not an excuse. So you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't know it was illegal, but you can in some instances (depending on the circumstances) not know that you were in possession of it.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/state_v_pelleteri.txt

 

According to the wonderful state of NJ, the bit in red is not important.

 

Pelleteri won a Marline .22lr semi-auto tube fed rifle in the 80's. He claims he was not aware the rifle held 17 rounds (rifle was still in the box with the labels and manual attached). He was convicted and the NJ Superior Court upheld the conviction.

 

The owner's manual indicated that the rifle could hold at

least seventeen cartridges. Defendant claimed that he never read

the manual. While conceding that he knew the rifle was a

semi-automatic weapon, defendant contended that he was unaware that

the firearm had a magazine capacity exceeding fifteen rounds.

 

The trial judge barred

the defenses of mistake of law and mistake of fact on the grounds

that the statutory prohibition was clearly written and published,

and that knowledge of the specific character of the weapon did not

constitute an element of the offense.

 

From the appellate judge

 

We are satisfied that the Legislature intended to proscribe

knowing possession, as distinguished from knowledge of the

illegal character of the article possessed.

 

"[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so

prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter

of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional

guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further

requirement of mens rea or its equivalent." State v. Hatch, 64 N.J.

at 184-85, 313 A.2d 797. When dealing with guns, the citizen acts

at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure

in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that

one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a

highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the

requisite license.

So along with the rifle, he was also given the manual which stated that the rifle was capable of holding 17 rounds. I don't see what the issue is. I'm sorry, but he took possession of the rifle. It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, but ignorance is not an excuse.

So along with the rifle, he was also given the manual which stated that the rifle was capable of holding 17 rounds. I don't see what the issue is. I'm sorry, but he took possession of the rifle. It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, but ignorance is not an excuse.

He won the rifle PRIOR to the Florio Ban.

It lived in the back of his safe, unfired, until the domestic issue that had him open the safe for inspection/confiscation by LE.

 

He was fooked by the NJ Legislature and the NJ Judiciary.

Not by any criminal intent of his own.

 

Piss Poor Lawyer

I could be wrong but there are a few issues being repeated here that are not being accurately described.

 

Aitken was charged with possession of the handgun, high capacity magazines, and hollowpoints. 3 charges.

 

Christie did not pardon Aitken. That would make it all go away. No conviction, no record. Christie commuted Aitken's sentence which means he went to jail long enough. He is still a convicted felon.

 

The possession of the handgun and high capacity magazine charges were overturned on appeal. IIRC, the gun possession charge was overurned as the judge failed in the original trial failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the moving exemption. They didn't rule Aitken was moving, they threw out the conviction based on the fact the jury was not properly instructed.

 

The magazine conviction was overturned as there was no testing proving the magazines would feed continuously.

 

The hollowpoint charge was upheld as Aitken was not transporting it under one of the exemptions listed in the law.

 

There was no deal struck. Courts never ruled that Aitken was moving.

 

The NJ hollowpoint law has no exemption for moving. However, this moving with hollowpoints never came up until the Aitken case. I have never heard of anyone else being chrarged with possession of hollowpoints while moving. This is right there with all the people in NJ who have been arrested for that single hollowpoint bullet in their trunk or the dummy round with the hollowpoint bullet on their keychain.

 

Yes there is no exemption for transporting hollowpoints while moving but actually being charged with it and it alone pretty much seems like a non-issue.

If Aitken was allowed to be retried, he would have been found guilty of all three charges.

If Aitken was allowed to be retried, he would have been found guilty of all three charges.

 

I agree with you 100%. There were too many inconsistences in his story and is a bad example to use for anything except poor judgement. The convictions that were overturned were the result of technicalities not innocence. I'm not agreeing with NJ firearms laws but they are what we have to live with.

 

 

Details of the case? There's no real intent in possession, it's more knowledge. If you know you're in possession of something, and you know it's illegal, you're committing the crime.

 

The bolded exception only applies to cops. For citizens, you do NOT have to know that what you are doing is illegal to be guilty. You just need to know you are doing it.

 

Example 1 - You are carrying a bag of cocaine. You know it is cocaine, but you don't know it is illegal. Or, you think you have a permit to transport it - GUILTY

 

Example 2 - You are carrying a bag of cocaine. You think it is a bag of sugar - NOT GUILTY. (but good luck with that)

 

Further, NJ courts have interpreted firearms laws under Strict Liability - the citizen deals with firearms at his own peril. Probably firearms are illegal by default, and also because the government and courts of NJ hate you. As a result, "due diligence" may not provide protection against ignorance of the law and knowingly committing the act may not matter either. This opens the possibility that you could possess a gun and not even know you possess it, having never seen a gun in your life, and still be guilty.

I agree with mipa. The "knowingly has in possession of <insert gun/bullet/mag,etc>" part of NJ gun laws refers to either you know you have the item or not. It does not refer to knowing what the characteristics are or not i.e. if it is legal or illegal or if it has specific features.

 

- Lets say you know you have a magazine in your gun safe, but you don't know the capacity. Turns out LE finds it, and it holds 20 rounds. Since you knew you had the magazine, you are guilty. Saying that you didn't "know" the capacity wouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

- Lets say your friend drops a hollow point bullet in your car and you didn't know he did. You have no idea the bullet was laying in the back carpet of your car. LE sees it, and charges you with illegal possession of a HP bullet. You can use the defense in court that you did not know the bullet was there, thus you did not "knowingly posses" it.

Brian Aitken again?

Dan,

IIRC, in the Merrill case, he knew that he possessed a MAK-90, but the case was dismissed as he did not know it was an assault weapon. No?

 

On February 26, 1996 Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Michael D. Farren, J.S.C. dismissed an indictment against Robert D. Merrill. The Judge declared that the definition of "assault firearm" is unconstitutional for vagueness and due process.

I have a question. In Pelletere v NJ, the defendant was charged with possession of an assault firearm due to magazine capacity right? But, I thought it was seized wihle in transport. It wasn't. It was seized from his home as part of a DOP thing, right?

 

If the law says you may possess, or carry ANY firearm in your business, premise or dwelling....how is it that Pelletere was convicted of illegal possession? it was in his home, right?

 

mind=dizzy

I guess it all depends on if ANY of your definitions of ANY make ANY damn sense ANY of the time! Like Clinton's definition of the word "is", lol!

 

Truth be told you can beat this horse to death over the little nit-pickie stuff, just like most of the other laws in NJ. They're all written by Lawyers for Lawyers so that you have to hire a Lawyer to get a plain text reading that has passed the general interpretation of even more Lawyers. The FIX is in, and we all LOSE!

 

So just go about your business, don't do anything to stupid to bring attention to yourself, and you'll probably die a happy man with lots of toys that go BANG!

 

Now please make checks payable to: Mr. I. M. Gasbag, Attorney-in-fact! And mail it to my address, lol!

Dan,

IIRC, in the Merrill case, he knew that he possessed a MAK-90, but the case was dismissed as he did not know it was an assault weapon. No?

 

His claim was that he felt the gun was not "substantially identical" to guns on the ban list, therefore it was not a NJ defined AW.

 

Because the judge declared the "substantially identical" clause in the AWB statute was unconstitutionally vague, he could no longer be charged with violating it and was set free with his gun. Then the whole evil feature list came about in the NJAC to remove any "vagueness" in the official statutes by applying clearly defined descriptions of features that would declare a gun "substantially identical" to SA guns on the evil ban list.

Details of the case? There's no real intent in possession, it's more knowledge. If you know you're in possession of something, and you know it's illegal, you're committing the crime. Remember, ignorance is not an excuse. So you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't know it was illegal, but you can in some instances (depending on the circumstances) not know that you were in possession of it.

The bolded exception only applies to cops. For citizens, you do NOT have to know that what you are doing is illegal to be guilty. You just need to know you are doing it.

 

Please read my entire post, I already covered that.

Pk90 wrote:

 

Is this issue really a big deal? How often does one move? If it ever becomes an issue, just ship the HPs to yourself at your new residence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the procedure for a legal gun owner (with FID and DL of 1st NJ residence) to legally ship hp ammo to his 2nd NJ residence during a move? Can a person actually ship ammo to himself in NJ? Which carrier? Does box need to be marked showing ammo? In addition, how about from NJ residence to new residence in Pa?

 

 

 

Please read my entire post, I already covered that.

 

Fine. Please delete the bolded part from your post because it is absolutely false and misleading:

 

If you know you're in possession of something, and you know it's illegal, you're committing the crime.

 

That was my point.

Pk90 wrote: Is this issue really a big deal? How often does one move? If it ever becomes an issue, just ship the HPs to yourself at your new residence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What's the procedure for a legal gun owner (with FID and DL of 1st NJ residence) to legally ship hp ammo to his 2nd NJ residence during a move? Can a person actually ship ammo to himself in NJ? Which carrier? Does box need to be marked showing ammo? In addition, how about from NJ residence to new residence in Pa?

 

If your that worried about transporting hollowpoints from one home to another, drive from your old house to a range and then to your new house.

If your that worried about transporting hollowpoints from one home to another, drive from your old house to a range and then to your new house.

 

Nah! What me worry? I'd prolly just shoot it up at range and buy more HP's at new place..i don't have more than few boxes of HP anyway..Actually was just interested in legality of sending myself ammo.. always wondered why my neighbor gave me 2 boxes of 45 silvertips 10 years ago before moving...

Fine. Please delete the bolded part from your post because it is absolutely false and misleading:

 

 

 

That was my point.

 

Umm, no. It's not misleading. I already covered that IGNORANCE is not an excuse. Unfortunately for you, ignorance is NOT the only criminal defense. I hate to quote wikipedia, but it's the first page I found that's accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_defenses