Let's say I'm on my way to the range. I'm hungry and I go thru a fast food drive thru and buy some unhealthy food.

 

Is that an illegal stop and why?

 

I searched but couldn't find a thread on this already. Apologies if it has been asked.

Unfortunately, yes. Splitting hairs, It's considered a deviation from A to B.

 

This question was brought up during a q&a with the state police about 4 years ago.

Theoretically, yes.  It's considered a deviation.  But....like anything else in NJ, you could probably come up with variations on this theme that wouldn't be considered a deviation.

My Leo friend says this:

 

If I pull you over from coming out of a drive through because your signal was out and discover your cargo and everything is legit, no prob...next time don't make stops, it's for your own safety.

 

If I pull you over for coming out of a drive through because your signal was out and I find 30 round magazines and something else illegal, you will get arrested for all the offenses including the improper transport.

 

Huh, go figure.

Isn't food a necessary deviation?? I figured that and using the bathroom. I stopped to take a poop one time, was that a felony?!? Pooping = felony in NJ. LOL!!

Although I'm more confused now than before reading the law, it seems to me like an unacceptable deviation. The question may become moot once the NJ legislature bans drive-thrus and unhealthy food. Even though I have a feeling Mr. Christie might veto that one.

I have never NOT stopped at a store or some other place for a quick refuel or bathroom break on my way home.  Oh well.

High capacity beverage container =

I shoot at CR so I usually go to the club house before I go home. Easiest and legal way for everything except fuel. 

 

But I was curious about this purely from an academic standpoint. 

 

And yes, I know the cops say it's an illegal stop but I'm more concerned about why. You're not getting out of the vehicle and it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable deviation. 

If you want to use logic, reason or common sense... then yes it is perfectly acceptable; BUT this is New Jersey and that type of thinking doesn't apply here.

 

IMO (I am not an LEO)---> If you are stopped lets say for a MV violation and the items in question are discovered then it's totally in the hands of the LEO who stopped you. Whatever "his" interpretation of the law is (whether it's his own opinion or a practice put in place by his department) will determine whether or not you will be charged. It has nothing to do with your interpretation no matter how right or reasonable it may be.

 

Now the chance that you may be stopped at the particular time at which you are returning from or going to the range is slim... but it could happen. In NJ you have no guarantees as to what could or will happen.

As demonstrated by these posts, this is another one of those vague, poorly worded, undefined areas that may or may not land you in legal land, depending on a number of factors that likely have nothing to do with the statute. 

As demonstrated by these posts, this is another one of those vague, poorly worded, undefined areas that may or may not land you in legal land, depending on a number of factors that likely have nothing to do with the statute. 

 

Bingo.

 

Next thing is, how will this play out in the courts if someone is arrested for this. I'm not saying I want to be a test case though! 

Why do we even live in this state.

Why do we even live in this state.

 

I've already said why. If I could sell my house for at least how much I paid for it I'd move tomorrow.

I've already said why. If I could sell my house for at least how much I paid for it I'd move tomorrow.

 

And if I could find another job...

And if I could find another job...

 

Job not a problem. I practically live in Pennsylvania. I could walk there in a couple of hours, lol. 

 

The statute states "directly to or from any target range".  If you stop anywhere at all, that is a violation of this statute.  There are no exceptions for restrooms, and a fast food drive through certainly violates the spirit of "directly". 

 

I'm not so sure, though admittedly I don't know what a court would do if it came to that.    If the fast food restaurant is on-route (and so often they are), the 'deviation' might only be 20 yards from the 'direct 'route.  Heck, even the GPS doesn't always know the car is no longer on the road.   Engine never shut off, driver never exits the vehicle, stop time barely longer than the delay at the next stop light...   One could make a very credible argument that the spirit of 'directly' was not violated.

*sigh*

 

Ok, here's the deal. Is food a legit stop? Technically no. Lets say you are diabetic and your blood sugar is spiking or crashing for whatever reason and you can't safely drive. Is stopping to rectify that  within the law? NO, but so is driving impaired. 

 

I'll pass on some awesome advice I received form an LEO way back when. "If you don't want to get caught, stick to breaking one law at a time."

 

Show me one case of someone prosecuted for this who wasn't buried under a bunch of other charges as well. 

 

Don't tempt fate, but don't drive yourself crazy with it. On it's own, it is an over restrictive law. There is no way to comply with it. Is the most direct route to the range the shortest by distance, or the shortest by time in transit.  If I leave my home and take a three hour meandering trip right back home without stopping, have I note gone directly from my home to my home if the meaning of the statue is without any other stops? If it means the shortest route by time, and there is a car accident ahead that backs up traffic and I take a detour, but have no longer taken the quickest or shortest route, have I broken the law?  If I go on a meandering joy ride, but only in the geographic region between my home and a rang I can actually go shoot at, can you prove I am not going to or from the range? 

 

As a law by itself, it is a waste of everyone's time, unless it provides the means for an officer who thinks there is something to be found to keep you form going on your way while he looks for it, or to pile on additional charges. Proving you actually broke the law is a PITA form the side of law enforcement. It really, really isn't worth the time and effort unless you think there is something else going on that you want to prove more. 

I really like the quote:  "Stick to breaking ONE law at a time" since that about sums it all up for me, as I'm a type 2 diabetic and often have to eat something in the middle of a Match (hell, they haven't outlawed THIS yet) LOL!

 

I've been behind the trigger for over 44 years.  I've never heard of anyone being "jacked-up" for this, except maybe for Aiken, and he was driving-around for days/weeks with hand guns in his car until his own Mother "dropped-the-dime" to let the Police know he might "off himself".  Other than that one case (and I could be wrong, but in NJ they usually charge you with EVERYTHING and let the Prosecutors play the games they do reducing charges for a plea to a lesser charge) I don't recall ever hearing or reading about someone getting a free ride to the Brig for taking a leak or buying a cheeseburger.

 

You "Kids" should stop worrying about every little thing (like cheeseburgers and urination) and instead focus all of your energies on "the big picture", like fighting gun registration and potential confiscations that some of our Assemblymen and Senators in Trenton are wishing to make happen.  ALL guns in NJ are currently illegal, and exist only through EXCEPTIONS and EXEMPTIONS.  Where or when I take a leak is a little low on the priority list of my Radar Screen........

 

Dave

Old Fudd and Shootist

............ I go thru a fast food drive thru and buy some unhealthy food.

 

 

 

If Bloomberg has his way and you did this in NYC, it wouldn't matter, you would be arrested for buying "unhealthy food"..

This is the kind of philosophic discussion gun owners can only have in places like NJ, NY, MA, CA.

 

I've been pulled over by the cops about 15 times in 40 years. The only time my car was searched was 25 years ago when crossing into Canada through rural Vermont (not the main entry). We looked kind of scruffy and the border guy was obviously looking for pot. He got down on his hands and knees and searched the floor mats.

 

The other time was about 20 years ago after I mouthed off to the cop.

 

I've learned my lesson. At age 59 I've taken to driving like an old lady. I don't mouth off to anybody, much less a LEO. 

 

I'm not saying nobody in NJ ever gets pulled over for no reason, but in my experience searches are rare unless you act like an asshole. If you get pulled over on your way home from the range and act like an asshole, well what do you expect?

An observer can only conclude that a vehicle has stopped with empirical evidence that the car has started moving the opposite direction than it was originally going.

 

When the observer witnesses the vehicle's velocity flip direction (i.e. roll back), the velocity has implicitly crossed over the zero velocity mark for a moment in time.

 

According to the laws of physics this evidence proves that the vehicle had stopped for some period of time, however infinitely small.

 

Without this evidence it is possible and even reasonable that a vehicle that appears to have stopped is actually still moving at a miniscule speed undetectable by mere mortals.

 

IMO you should be fine if you ride the clutch

 

And a lawyer with an engineering degree can come in handy

lol^

And a lawyer with an engineering degree can come in handy

As opposed to a lawyer with a law degree?

 

I've already said why. If I could sell my house for at least how much I paid for it I'd move tomorrow.

 

 

And if I could find another job...

 

 

all of this and immediate family is the only reason...mostly job and house though so i feel ya

all of this and immediate family is the only reason...mostly job and house though so i feel ya

 

I've often told my wife that on the day I retire, three conditions will be met.

 

1) The loaded U-haul will be parked in front of the office.

2) It will be pointed West

3) The engine will be left running

 

I can't leave for awhile, but when I can, I and my accumulated wealth (such as it is) will be out of here in a matter of hours.

I've often told my wife that on the day I retire, three conditions will be met.

 

1) The loaded U-haul will be parked in front of the office.

2) It will be pointed West

3) The engine will be left running

 

I can't leave for awhile, but when I can, I and my accumulated wealth (such as it is) will be out of here in a matter of hours.

 

 

Done, done, and done...well said man im borrowing your plan though im sure i have a longer wait than you do haha

 

When you say west what would be your first choice in terms of state?

 

Also. in order not to stray from the topic if i get the crave for some spicy chicken nuggets its on.....drive thru it will  be

As opposed to a lawyer with a law degree?

 

 

Law school ruins some of the best minds!

I don't want to call this thread ridiculous, but personally...come on. Many of us have agreed that these types of gun law threads are just getting to be too much.

 

 

all of this and immediate family is the only reason...mostly job and house though so i feel ya

 

 

I've often told my wife that on the day I retire, three conditions will be met.

 

1) The loaded U-haul will be parked in front of the office.

2) It will be pointed West

3) The engine will be left running

 

I can't leave for awhile, but when I can, I and my accumulated wealth (such as it is) will be out of here in a matter of hours.

# 3 is a no go in NJ. We have anti idling laws here as well.