NJ Traffic stop laws and guns

[Duppie 73]

Hello Folks.

Brand new to this forum and I am sure that this question have arisen, perhaps numerous times.

What is the correct procedure if in a routine traffic stop with my pistols and range bag in the trunk?. all properly separated,locked, and stowed according to NJ laws.

Am I required to inform the officer of the firearms immediately? Wait till he asks a pointed question? or is it a matter of nobody's business but my own?

I know in some states you are required to inform any LEO involved in a routine stop immediately of any firearms and ammo in the vehicle.

I also am aware that you have to show somehow that you were either on the way or returning from a authorized firing venue.

What say you?

[Krdshrk 3,877]

You're not required to inform them of anything.

[PK90 3,570]

Hello Folks.

Brand new to this forum and I am sure that this question have arisen, perhaps numerous times.

What is the correct procedure if in a routine traffic stop with my pistols and range bag in the trunk?. Nothing different all properly separated,locked, and stowed according to NJ laws? Yes, basically.

Am I required to inform the officer of the firearms immediately? No Wait till he asks a pointed question? Yes or is it a matter of nobody's business but my own? Nope

I know in some states you are required to inform any LEO involved in a routine stop immediately of any firearms and ammo in the vehicle. Not required here.

I also am aware that you have to show somehow that you were either on the way or returning from a authorized firing venue.

What say you? No proof required. If you route is not direct it must be explainable.

[Dan 177]

It is your personal choice if you want to exercise your constitutional right to keep quiet and refrain from answering any questions "Sorry officer, my legal counsel has advised me to only identify myself and provide my DL, insurance, and registration card if I get pulled over in my vehicle, I hope you understand, am I free to go?", or if you volunteer a response "Yes sir, I am legally transporting guns from/to the range according to state laws and guildelines".. as some examples.

 

If asked..I do not recommend lying.Keep quiet or tell the truth.

[Duppie 73]

Thank you Gentlemen for your answers and I look forward to future participation.

[EchoMirage 137]

im surprised PK didnt jump on the 'separate' word again.

 

if you are ever pulled over, you absolutely do NOT HAVE to tell him anything, at all, whatsoever. if youre really new to this, then keep in mind this one statement. in NJ, you are GUILTY until proven innocent (and usually not even then) when it comes to guns. period. i dont care if you have them dismantled into 50 pieces, chances are he'll find some bs to bust your balls on, and 9 times out of 10 HES the one whos wrong, not you. all youre doing by divulging information is digging your own grave.

[PK90 3,570]

im surprised PK didnt jump on the 'separate' word again.

Hence, the "Yes, basically" answer.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Welcome.

 

Can you tell me what state that you know of that say's by law you have to say if you are transporting firearms.

 

Is this for regular secured firearms or CCW your talking about?

 

Harry

[Duppie 73]

Welcome.

 

Can you tell me what state that you know of that say's by law you have to say if you are transporting firearms.

 

Is this for regular secured firearms or CCW your talking about?

 

Harry

As I was informed from my ex father in law, a retired agent and avid RV'er. Just about every state that attaches a CCW permit to a drivers license will require you to inform A LEO stopping you by handing over your carry card along with the drivers license. As for legally transporting without a CCW,the states supposedly are Ohio,Alaska,and Montana.However wey're are apparently instances where regional/local municipalities and law enforcement entities either ignore or interpret their state's laws rather differently

wey're is so little definitive info on the subject that I thought that this forum would be the place to gather what necessary info I needed in order to remain within the laws of the state and not become another expensive and embarrassing news blurb.

 

For some reason "wey're" is un editable. My apologies.

[Melgamatic 66]

As I was informed from my ex father in law, a retired agent and avid RV'er

 

So, it must be true.

[Duppie 73]

So, it must be true.

Forgive me.... Are you saying It's not?

As I explained,I'm seeking the forum's knowledge and experience in this particular matter and expect some snark, but it's hardly helpful.

[The Dark Knight 11]

Forgive me.... Are you saying It's not?

 

Logic would dictate that those who work in law enforcement are very familiar with the gun laws and all the specifics of such.

 

However, that's simply not the case, and you're bound to hear some awfully clueless responses when asking your "buddy who's a cop" about gun laws. Clueless responses that can leave you sitting in a prison cell for an extended stay.

 

Simply put, when it comes to guns in NJ, if you don't see it in writing from the state, assume it's bs.

[Duppie 73]

Logic would dictate that those who work in law enforcement are very familiar with the gun laws and all the specifics of such.

 

However, that's simply not the case, and you're bound to hear some awfully clueless responses when asking your "buddy who's a cop" about gun laws. Clueless responses that can leave you sitting in a prison cell for an extended stay.

 

Simply put, when it comes to guns in NJ, if you don't see it in writing from the state, assume it's bs.

Agreed. But as I replied to Harry's question as I understand it, this is what was relayed to me and my source, Notice I used "Supposed"in my reply and further indicated that wey're was so few resources. Again my question remains... Is anything I was told patently untrue?.

Please I do not want to seem combative but only wish to clarify what little info I do possess to be factual.

[PeteF 1,044]

So, it must be true.

 

I'm not 100% on this but it varies from state to state.

As far as I can tell in Alaska, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah,

you need to let the LEO know when stopped.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

As I was informed from my ex father in law, a retired agent and avid RV'er. Just about every state that attaches a CCW permit to a drivers license will require you to inform A LEO stopping you by handing over your carry card along with the drivers license. As for legally transporting without a CCW,the states supposedly are Ohio,Alaska,and Montana.However wey're are apparently instances where regional/local municipalities and law enforcement entities either ignore or interpret their state's laws rather differently

wey're is so little definitive info on the subject that I thought that this forum would be the place to gather what necessary info I needed in order to remain within the laws of the state and not become another expensive and embarrassing news blurb.

 

For some reason "wey're" is un editable. My apologies.

 

As far as CCW, well if I am ever pulled over and I am carring, yes I will at that time inform the officer who pulled me over my drivers license and CCW license and await further instruction. Yes I would when asked at that time will not make any sudden moves and advise before reaching for anything describing what I have on my person and where it is and go from there. I do not have any problems doing that at all and hope the officer who may have pulled me over also notices that I am fully willing to comply and make it know I am not a threat to him or anyone for Their and MY safety.

 

Now if I am just traveling with guns, Long or Hand and not loaded in the trunk I wont mention a thing unless asked. If I am asked because I also have CCW's from multiple states after he checks out my information I will let him know where they are and how they and any associated articles are being transported, again for their and my safety, but again, I will stress only if asked.

 

Harry

[EchoMirage 137]

Is anything I was told patently untrue?.

Please I do not want to seem combative but only wish to clarify what little info I do possess to be factual.

 

ammo/gun does NOT have to be separate. it does NOT have to be locked.....only fastened or closed. a gunsock with the flap tied or velcroed is perfectly legal per NJ law.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

As mentioned above, DO NOT listen to your LEO buddy for advice, YOU are the one that is responsible for knowing the laws. I happen to know some LEO's that do not entirely know the NJ laws, that really suprises me. I was recently informed that I can but long guns (rifles and shotguns) without an FID. He was very suprised when I told him I can't. He was going to check with his Sergeant and let me know what he had to say. I'm curious how far up the chain of command this will go. I can't divulge my friends name or where he works, it isn't local to me though.

[Duppie 73]

ammo/gun does NOT have to be separate. it does NOT have to be locked.....only fastened or closed. a gunsock with the flap tied or velcroed is perfectly legal per NJ law.

Good to know. So I am not required to separate my pistols from their magazines and spare ammo I carry in my range bag.That's why I asked the questions.

Thank you.

[The Dark Knight 11]

As mentioned above, DO NOT listen to your LEO buddy for advice, YOU are the one that is responsible for knowing the laws. I happen to know some LEO's that do not entirely know the NJ laws, that really suprises me. I was recently informed that I can but long guns (rifles and shotguns) without an FID. He was very suprised when I told him I can't. He was going to check with his Sergeant and let me know what he had to say. I'm curious how far up the chain of command this will go. I can't divulge my friends name or where he works, it isn't local to me though.

 

 

It's almost hilarious if it were also not so dangerous for the well being of the public. I fully understand there's a ton of laws out there and don't expect Joe Patrolman to know off the top of his head what the fine is for dog poop or jaywalking or something. But the fact that tons of LEO out there have no clue about the wordings of serious laws which carry massive sentences, it really shines a poor light on how some idiots can just make their way onto a PD. Flat out inexcusable. What other job can you be completely inept and unaware of major company policies and not get fired? I too am curious to see how far up the chain this idiocy goes.

[PeteF 1,044]

It's almost hilarious if it were also not so dangerous for the well being of the public. I fully understand there's a ton of laws out there and don't expect Joe Patrolman to know off the top of his head what the fine is for dog poop or jaywalking or something. But the fact that tons of LEO out there have no clue about the wordings of serious laws which carry massive sentences, it really shines a poor light on how some idiots can just make their way onto a PD. Flat out inexcusable. What other job can you be completely inept and unaware of major company policies and not get fired? I too am curious to see how far up the chain this idiocy goes.

 

 

As to NJ gun laws, LAWYERS can't even figure what the hell the gun laws mean. And I'm talking the lawyers that wrote the damn things.

 

For Reference:

 

2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the

firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term "substantial" means

pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term "identical" means

exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially identical to another only if it is identical in all

material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless

it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm.

[KpdPipes 388]

It's almost hilarious if it were also not so dangerous for the well being of the public. I fully understand there's a ton of laws out there and don't expect Joe Patrolman to know off the top of his head what the fine is for dog poop or jaywalking or something. But the fact that tons of LEO out there have no clue about the wordings of serious laws which carry massive sentences, it really shines a poor light on how some idiots can just make their way onto a PD. Flat out inexcusable. What other job can you be completely inept and unaware of major company policies and not get fired? I too am curious to see how far up the chain this idiocy goes.

 

So, when are you taking the Test????

[Duppie 73]

It's almost hilarious if it were also not so dangerous for the well being of the public. I fully understand there's a ton of laws out there and don't expect Joe Patrolman to know off the top of his head what the fine is for dog poop or jaywalking or something. But the fact that tons of LEO out there have no clue about the wordings of serious laws which carry massive sentences, it really shines a poor light on how some idiots can just make their way onto a PD. Flat out inexcusable. What other job can you be completely inept and unaware of major company policies and not get fired? I too am curious to see how far up the chain this idiocy goes.

In a former profession I had the pleasure of working rather closely with hard working and dedicated beat cops in NYC and truly have a lot of respect for those on the force, however since moving to the burbs,I see what some of the small town cops have been reduced to in the pretense of holding up the law and feel sorry more than outraged. I don't believe that most of new cadet classes realized that the bulk of their duties would be in essence... tax collecting rather than law enforcement and by the time they do, it's too late. So I can't really fault them for not knowing every letter of some very arcane and complicated laws especially since most of their days are spent involved in actions most of them despise.

[Jon 264]

It's almost hilarious if it were also not so dangerous for the well being of the public. I fully understand there's a ton of laws out there and don't expect Joe Patrolman to know off the top of his head what the fine is for dog poop or jaywalking or something. But the fact that tons of LEO out there have no clue about the wordings of serious laws which carry massive sentences, it really shines a poor light on how some idiots can just make their way onto a PD. Flat out inexcusable. What other job can you be completely inept and unaware of major company policies and not get fired? I too am curious to see how far up the chain this idiocy goes.

 

As already mentioned, it's the complexity of the laws that is the problem, not what the officers know. This forum is dedicated to firearms, and each firearm law is still debated.

[Dan 177]

In a former profession I had the pleasure of working rather closely with hard working and dedicated beat cops in NYC and truly have a lot of respect for those on the force, however since moving to the burbs,I see what some of the small town cops have been reduced to in the pretense of holding up the law and feel sorry more than outraged. I don't believe that most of new cadet classes realized that the bulk of their duties would be in essence tax collecting rather than law enforcement and by the time they do, it's too late. So I can't really fault them for not knowing every letter of some very arcane and complicated laws especially since most of their days are spent involved in actions most of them despise.

 

I have to disagree here. How does one enforce a law if one does not understand the law. To my knowledge, arresting and charging someone for a crime, typically means you should know at least the basics of the law in question. Arresting and charging someone for instance... because "it looks illegal" is unacceptable. An example would be the pump shotgun pistol-grip guy here on the forums.

 

Usually, "street crime" laws are pretty common sense. Complex criminal stuff like cooking books, extortion, bribery, blackmail,etc.. usually involve detective work, and lots of time and energy pouring over the criminal code to make sure when they move in and make arrests, they have a solid case.

 

When it comes to NJ gun laws its a different story. Our gun laws are so confusing and complex, when a LEO encounters a civilian with a gun, they almost feel compelled to make the arrest 'just in case it is illegal' Then they go through the whole booking process and then decide if any laws were violated. This is a broken system.

 

If the laws are complex and convoluted, and LE doesn't like them , they should be out there promoting and publicizing their stance around it. They could go out there and make their case that NJ gun laws are too complex, and how they snare law abiding gun owners in their quagmire of traps and technicalities, and how LEO's are just as confused over the laws as any NJ gun owner is. Instead, all I ever see out of NJ LE organizations' "spokespeople" is how they want MORE gun control laws, typically parading already illegal/banned firearms for the media.

[Jon 264]

I have to disagree here. How does one enforce a law if one does not understand the law. To my knowledge, arresting and charging someone for a crime, typically means you should know at least the basics of the law in question. Arresting and charging someone for instance... because "it looks illegal" is unacceptable. An example would be the pump shotgun pistol-grip guy here on the forums.

 

Usually, "street crime" laws are pretty common sense. Complex criminal stuff like cooking books, extortion, bribery, blackmail,etc.. usually involve detective work, and lots of time and energy pouring over the criminal code to make sure when they move in and make arrests, they have a solid case.

 

When it comes to NJ gun laws its a different story. Our gun laws are so confusing and complex, when a LEO encounters a civilian with a gun, they almost feel compelled to make the arrest 'just in case it is illegal' Then they go through the whole booking process and then decide if any laws were violated. This is a broken system.

 

If the laws are complex and convoluted, and LE doesn't like them , they should be out there promoting and publicizing their stance around it. They could go out there and make their case that NJ gun laws are too complex, and how they snare law abiding gun owners in their quagmire of traps and technicalities, and how LEO's are just as confused over the laws as any NJ gun owner is. Instead, all I ever see out of NJ LE organizations' "spokespeople" is how they want MORE gun control laws, typically parading already illegal/banned firearms for the media.

 

Just want to make one note on your response re: pistol grip shotgun. I can tell you that the forum never got the whole truth with that story, however I am unable to go into any more detail than that.

[Dan 177]

Just want to make one note on your response re: pistol grip shotgun. I can tell you that the forum never got the whole truth with that story, however I am unable to go into any more detail than that.

 

Fair enough. Even removing that example, the point stays the same. I would like to wake up one day and see NJLE organizations speaking out on how ridiculous our gun laws are, and how a vast majority of them them do nothing in terms of getting criminals off the streets, or preventing them from obtaining guns illegally.

[Duppie 73]

I have to disagree here. How does one enforce a law if one does not understand the law. To my knowledge, arresting and charging someone for a crime, typically means you should know at least the basics of the law in question. Arresting and charging someone for instance... because "it looks illegal" is unacceptable. An example would be the pump shotgun pistol-grip guy here on the forums.

 

Usually, "street crime" laws are pretty common sense. Complex criminal stuff like cooking books, extortion, bribery, blackmail,etc.. usually involve detective work, and lots of time and energy pouring over the criminal code to make sure when they move in and make arrests, they have a solid case.

 

When it comes to NJ gun laws its a different story. Our gun laws are so confusing and complex, when a LEO encounters a civilian with a gun, they almost feel compelled to make the arrest 'just in case it is illegal' Then they go through the whole booking process and then decide if any laws were violated. This is a broken system.

 

If the laws are complex and convoluted, and LE doesn't like them , they should be out there promoting and publicizing their stance around it. They could go out there and make their case that NJ gun laws are too complex, and how they snare law abiding gun owners in their quagmire of traps and technicalities, and how LEO's are just as confused over the laws as any NJ gun owner is. Instead, all I ever see out of NJ LE organizations' "spokespeople" is how they want MORE gun control laws, typically parading already illegal/banned firearms for the media.

Look' I hear you and can't help but agree with the gist of your argument. But I approach this as living in a imperfect environment with imperfect laws administered by imperfect people. I'm old enough and I believe savy enough to recognize that nothing short of a massive ground swell of opposition of our laws will change our inenviable positions as gun owners in this state. So in the interim I learn as much as I can of the pitfalls and try to avoid them. My responsibility... not theirs.

[The Dark Knight 11]

As already mentioned, it's the complexity of the laws that is the problem, not what the officers know. This forum is dedicated to firearms, and each firearm law is still debated.

 

But the problem is, I wasn't talking about complex parts of the law. I wasn't saying the officers are unsure of the cryptic meaning of the substantially identical clause. I was referring to officers being unaware of bare bones, basic facets of NJ gun laws such as "you need an FID card to buy a rifle" or "this is the way the gun should be transported to the range" and there is simply NO excuse for them not to know that, especially considering the weight of the penalty for such "infractions".

 

I don't know about you but I'd also rather not take my car to a mechanic that "kinda has an idea where those bolts go" or have my house wired by an electrician that "remembers watching someone do this once" but hey, that's just me.

[The Dark Knight 11]

If the laws are complex and convoluted, and LE doesn't like them , they should be out there promoting and publicizing their stance around it. They could go out there and make their case that NJ gun laws are too complex, and how they snare law abiding gun owners in their quagmire of traps and technicalities, and how LEO's are just as confused over the laws as any NJ gun owner is. Instead, all I ever see out of NJ LE organizations' "spokespeople" is how they want MORE gun control laws, typically parading already illegal/banned firearms for the media.

 

Well said. Case in point, note the "KPD cop" above who simply attacked me personally, insinuating basically that I should take the test and become a cop myself if I don't like how things are, rather than sympathize with the public. It's definitely a bad case of us "vs. them" in their eyes where the police, and sadly members of the public as well, go to great lengths to excuse the inexcusable rather than own up to their own flaws.

[mrjam2jab 9]

I'm not 100% on this but it varies from state to state.

As far as I can tell in Alaska, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah,

you need to let the LEO know when stopped.

 

Almost:

 

AK, AR, LA, MI, NC, NE, OH, OK, SC, TX

 

are the 10 states that are Must Notify states. Everywhere else no reason to bring it up.