wink-_-wink 1 Posted October 22, 2014 Wow! So this dudes wife stabs him, the cops show up and now he is in jail on weapons charges.... http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/10/saddle_brook_man_had_195_guns_300_pounds_of_gunpowder_at_home_prosecutor_says.html#incart_m-rpt-1 I mean he is 65, so he has had a long time to acquire such an impressive collection. I just think this is a bit ridiculous. Not that he had nearly 200 guns but that he is the victim of a crime and is now being punished for having weapons he likely had for YEARS! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
effd27145 0 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I cant seem to find the post but this was already posted when it first originally happened. Edit Found it http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/71427-man-arrested-for-possessing-300-lbs-of-black-powder/?hl=%2Bman+%2Barrested Edited October 22, 2014 by effd27145 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wink-_-wink 1 Posted October 22, 2014 oh wow, I looked but didnt see anything. The date on the article was october, didn't know this was an older story! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted October 22, 2014 i read part of the article from a link on farcebook. they're charging him apparently for the tommygun, sten, and an m1 carbine amongst other things. but.......wasn't the removal of his firearms illegal? thus they can't charge him due to illegally obtained evidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted October 22, 2014 he hopes the removal was illegal. it's his only chance to not spend a good amount of time in jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PD2K 115 Posted October 22, 2014 Maybe he can get off on an illegal search, but unfortunately I have no sympathy if he truly had illegal full auto weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted October 22, 2014 Really? A full auto Sten and Thompson are Class III weapons and are ILLEGAL in this state and without the proper 'stamp' That being said he should have known better. yea, he should have. i'm right there with that. but.....how many of you here have said that if your stuff is suddenly made illegal, that you won't comply? seems that that's pretty much what he did. that all said, if i'd had that stuff when it became illegal, it'd have moved to a friends home in pa, 'cause my skinny ass ain't risking going to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted October 22, 2014 Maybe he can get off on an illegal search, but unfortunately I have no sympathy if he truly had illegal full auto weapons. Until he committed a "real" crime with them he has my full sympathy. His safe-queen machine gun poses no threat to anyone. An unjust law is no law at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted October 22, 2014 Wow! So this dudes wife stabs him, the cops show up and now he is in jail on weapons charges.... http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/10/saddle_brook_man_had_195_guns_300_pounds_of_gunpowder_at_home_prosecutor_says.html#incart_m-rpt-1 I mean he is 65, so he has had a long time to acquire such an impressive collection. I just think this is a bit ridiculous. Not that he had nearly 200 guns but that he is the victim of a crime and is now being punished for having weapons he likely had for YEARS! ....what?? So you think that just because he broke the law for years and nobody ever found out, it should be overlooked? That's absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted October 22, 2014 "...The legal limit of black gunpowder that can be stored residentially is 50 pounds and 100 pounds for the smokeless variety...". OMG 100 pounds ? Who needs 100 pounds unless they are terrorist ? </sarcasm> Some Dem is already crafting new Bill around the limit on what can be stored at home. I was never aware of any limit. Is there a legal limit ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted October 22, 2014 There is and those numbers are wrong, i *think*...I think the max of smokeless is 36 lbs. That is why you convert the loose powder to ammo as fast as you can reload ! Good to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted October 22, 2014 The only thing this guy did right was refuse consent to open his safes. That gives him a least a chance at winning a suppression motion. Even assuming that the police can lawfully take custody of a DV victim's firearms when the offender (spouse) had been arrested and removed from the premises, they had no exigent circumstances that should excuse their failure to seek a search warrant to open the safes. They could have simply posted an officer to guard the safe until a judge heard and decided the warrant application. To use the Jaws of Life without bothering to seek a warrant seems highly suspect to me, at least. Safes were not going anywhere and the firearms were fully secured inside. Motion to suppress granted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carl_g 568 Posted October 22, 2014 Cops abusing their power? Sounds like it. If that's the case, I hope he gets off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted October 23, 2014 I believe, if they article is correct, he had 30 round mags also. So he will get jammed up on them. If they were in the safe, I hope it gets surpressed. I wish we knew more details about why there was a rush to open the safe. Just because he denied them access to it should not be sufficient reason to pry it open. Also, according to the aricle the neighbors said he was a gun collector. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMWR12 35 Posted October 23, 2014 There is an M1 carbine Paratrooper model in one of the pics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murphy4570 15 Posted October 23, 2014 Fruit of the poisonous tree. Charges dropped, all weapons returned to owner. Anything not legal in NJ sent to FFL of owner's choice for holding until owner finds a buyer out-of-state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted October 23, 2014 stuff like this makes me think secret hidden underground safe. that is of course if i hadn't lost my only single plinker in a tragic kayaking accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted October 23, 2014 http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lsse/laws/Explosives_Law.html#190101 This is the section of the law dealing with smokeless and black powder in the home. A good read for anyone that stores larger size quantities of powder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albanian 121 Posted October 24, 2014 Theft and false imprisonment by the state. Simple as that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted October 24, 2014 In NJ, cops can seize any weapons at the scene of an act of domestic violence. It doesn't matter if the weapons are the victim's or attacker's. All LE needs to do is to learn that a weapon is present on the premises in order to legally confiscate said weapons. After that it is purely up to the courts to determine if the weapons will be returned or not, all the way up to giving them the power to revoke FPID's and forced forfeiture of weapons. There are even protections that it is illegal to bring civil actions against LE for not returning seized weapons!! So in essence, the cops can keep them forever, and you can't even sue to get them back. 2C:25-21d : http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-2c/section-2c-25/2c-25-21/ d. (1) In addition to a law enforcement officers authority to seize any weapon that is contraband, evidence or an instrumentality of crime, a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed shall:(a)question persons present to determine whether there are weapons on the premises; and(b)upon observing or learning that a weapon is present on the premises, seize any weapon that the officer reasonably believes would expose the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury. If a law enforcement officer seizes any firearm pursuant to this paragraph, the officer shall also seize any firearm purchaser identification card or permit to purchase a handgun issued to the person accused of the act of domestic violence.(2)A law enforcement officer shall deliver all weapons, firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase a handgun seized pursuant to this section to the county prosecutor and shall append an inventory of all seized items to the domestic violence report. Besides this terrible law, my issue lies in the cruel and unusual punishment associated with the victimless crime of simply possessing a prohibited weapon, in this case banned in NJ rifles and normal capacity magazines. Crimes where no victim is present do not warrant the kind of jail time that the state and federal laws prescribe. I feel the same way with drug crimes in this country. Its no wonder we lead the world in prisoners of 743 per 100K population and continues to climb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted October 24, 2014 I believe that paragraph (d) states "exposes victim", well then why would you seize the victim's weapons. But, it's all mute now, up to the courts to decide. This state sux, period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted October 24, 2014 I believe that paragraph (d) states "exposes victim", well then why would you seize the victim's weapons. But, it's all mute now, up to the courts to decide. This state sux, period. As long as LE can assert that they "reasonably believe" the weapons can expose the victim to risk. In this case, the guns being under the same roof of the attacker (wife) is reason enough for them to invoke the seizure under color of law. OT but read up on civil forfeiture laws if you haven't before. They vary state by state, but in many, LE can even confiscate large sums of cash for no practical reason simply by stating that they "reasonably believe" that said cash has been acquired via non-specific illegal means. It is then up to you to hire a lawyer and battle through the legal gauntlet to prove that your cash is legit and attempt to get a court order to have it returned. Bottom line, your stuff is only yours unless the govt take an interest in it. If they do, they can figure out a way to make it look legal, and you the look like the bad guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted October 24, 2014 Don't hold cash. Not worth the paper it's printed on. When the goberment bellies up, you have bird cage liner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wink-_-wink 1 Posted October 25, 2014 ....what?? So you think that just because he broke the law for years and nobody ever found out, it should be overlooked? That's absurd. No i think that his safes should not have been illegally opened jecause he was the victim of a crime. I am not advocating breaking the law on his part, I am saying the way this went down is absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted October 25, 2014 The search and confiscation of the safe should be tossed but prob wont. Once the attacker(wife) was hauled off the victem(husband) was no longer "exposed" to a threat and there goes the cause to remove any weapons. A reasonable person of authority on the scene should have been on top of that . Its that simple. Do you think anyone there knew the attack on the safe may have been wrong but was hesitant to speak up? Thats the scary part to me that when these incidents happen mob mentality takes over not the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted October 27, 2014 The statutes regarding the amount of powder to he allowed in a residence is taken from the NFPA, IBC and UCC codes. The requirements are essentially a building code restriction. Due to the hazardous nature of the material and the type of construction most homes are (V-B: Combustible) the quantity of the material has to be limited. I deal with this every day at work, when clients want to store large quantities of flammable liquids they are required to build room capable of withstanding 2 hours of continuous fire, vapor monitoring systems and so on. The powder limitation is not a grab for your rights, but a building code and public safety issue. This play by the police is pry open this man's safes after he was attached is ridiculous. This is why I don't trust any cops and need to get out of this damn state as soon as possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites