Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html

 

N.J.S.A 2C:39-3f(1) limits the possession of hollow nose ammunition. However, there is a general exception that allows for the purchase of this ammunition but restricts the possession of it to specified locations. This exception provides that:

(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)].

 

Thus a person may purchase this ammunition and keep it within the confines of his property. Sub section f (1) further exempts from the prohibited possession of hollow nose ammunition "persons engaged in activities pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f. . . ."
N.J.S.A 26:39-3f. (1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So exemption (2) above talks about "keeping" the ammo at home.   Doesn't mention "using" the ammo...   food for thought there...

 

I just load up with Hornady Critical Defense instead, which is (unofficially at least) not considered hollow point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal to buy, transport, possess, etc. BUT not legal to use? :facepalm: Only Chuck Norris can use HPs.

 

Would this actually surprise you in NJ?

 

A self defense shooting it technically a crime (homicide) but it may have a legal justification under laws for use of deadly force.

 

The use of hollow points during a crime (homicide) is also *by itself* another crime, but there are no line item exemptions above/beyond those specifically listed for purchase, transfer, and possession.   So, I honestly wouldn't put it past a NJ prosecutor to still go after a hollow point charge, even if the shooting itself was deemed justifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what kind of ammo Brian Aitken was convicted for the possession of? As I understand, it didn't literally have a hollow point, but a judge ruled it to be legally a hollow point because it was designed to expand on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this actually surprise you in NJ?

 

A self defense shooting it technically a crime (homicide) but it may have a legal justification under laws for use of deadly force.

 

The use of hollow points during a crime (homicide) is also *by itself* another crime, but there are no line item exemptions above/beyond those specifically listed for purchase, transfer, and possession.   So, I honestly wouldn't put it past a NJ prosecutor to still go after a hollow point charge, even if the shooting itself was deemed justifiable.

With that logic, would they go after someone for discharging if it was prohibited in their municipality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic, would they go after someone for discharging if it was prohibited in their municipality?

 

Would they?  I don't know.

 

Could they?  Legally, yes.   I think in NJ they are going to go over ALL of your firearms with a fine tooth comb to look for anything potentially illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they?  I don't know.

 

Could they?  Legally, yes.   I think in NJ they are going to go over ALL of your firearms with a fine tooth comb to look for anything potentially illegal.

During my last stint on jury duty, they only mentioned possession of HPs once and it wasn't for us to decide anything to do with that issue, just the "big" charge.  Guess they are either selective or maybe the judge used that during sentencing?  We were dismissed before they got to that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what kind of ammo Brian Aitken was convicted for the possession of? As I understand, it didn't literally have a hollow point, but a judge ruled it to be legally a hollow point because it was designed to expand on impact.

The prohibition is for hollow point and dumdum bullets. Hornady Critical Defense/Duty are dumdums not HP. The same goes for EFMJ.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prohibition is for hollow point and dumdum bullets. Hornady Critical Defense/Duty are dumdums not HP. The same goes for EFMJ.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

The judge in the Aitken case used a literal interpretation of the law - something I warned about in a post that pre-dated the Aitken case by some measure. Not sure if the ruling in the Aitken case sets a precedent.

 

Prior to that case the NJSP sought an opinion from the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) as to whether Hornady Critical Defense, Federal EFMJ and Corbon/Glasr PowR Ball should be considered hollowpoints. They answered in the negative - but since the Aitken ruling, who knows?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge in the Aitken case used a literal interpretation of the law - something I warned about in a post that pre-dated the Aitken case by some measure. Not sure if the ruling in the Aitken case sets a precedent.

 

Prior to that case the NJSP sought an opinion from the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) as to whether Hornady Critical Defense, Federal EFMJ and Corbon/Glasr PowR Ball should be considered hollowpoints. They answered in the negative - but since the Aitken ruling, who knows?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 I dont recall the NJSP arguing for the ATFE's opinion after the Aitken ruling so yes, I think we do know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the NJ statutes does it say you can not shoot hollow point bullets; they only cover possession. Someone correct me if I'm wrong and cite the statute please.

 

I am in my home. Therefore I can possess hollow points legally, whether I choose to shoot them or not.

 

I presume some of you saw this article this morning, Hence this discussion.

 

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2014/08/more_than_47_weapons_seized_from_ocean_township_home.html#incart_most-comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this actually surprise you in NJ?

 

A self defense shooting it technically a crime (homicide) but it may have a legal justification under laws for use of deadly force.

 

The use of hollow points during a crime (homicide) is also *by itself* another crime, but there are no line item exemptions above/beyond those specifically listed for purchase, transfer, and possession.   So, I honestly wouldn't put it past a NJ prosecutor to still go after a hollow point charge, even if the shooting itself was deemed justifiable.

You are twisting definitions to turn a SD shooting into some type of crime. All homicides are not crimes. Justifiable homicide, as a SD shooting, is not a crime. Ergo, why would you be charged with a hollow point charge?

 

If it bothers you so much just don't use hollow points at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You are twisting definitions to turn a SD shooting into some type of crime.  Justifiable homicide, as a SD shooting, is not a crime.  Ergo, why would you be charged with a hollow point charge?"

 

In any other state I wouldn't worry about it...  the victim is treated like a criminal in New Jersey.   Use of hollow points in ANY crime is an add-on charge.  Even if the shooting was justifiable, you did discharge a weapon inside town limits, maybe you brandished the gun against another unarmed assailant, and heaven forbid one of your pinned mags can squeeze in a 16th round or you haven't gotten around to filing off a bayonet lug from a project gun in the closet.   Look at the link a few posts above, they are throwing the book at that guy.  Maybe his lawyer will get those charges dropped, maybe he won't.

 

 

 

"If it bothers you so much just don't use hollow points at all."

 

I use Critical Defense.  Maybe not a 100% solution, but it's a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they were in the gun he brandished.

That's probably right. Plus, he may have been outside his "home" when he threatened the worker.

 

Also, note that this guy's bail was $50k/10% even though he actually brandished a gun and Keith Pantaleon's was $75k / no 10%.

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...