Don't get pulled over leaving NJ

[71ragtopgoat 23]

My wife finds it funny that everytime we go to/from a range I actually drive the exact speed limit..........

+1 I feel bad for the people behind me when I leave CR. I am always under 45 mph but I will pull off the road once there is a big line of cars.There are a bunch of police on that road .It must be a big earner for speeders.

[Downr@nge 22]

That whole thread is a search for the boogeyman. Although it wouldn't surprise me if a prosecutor in NJ attempted such a thing, it would clearly be a folly.

 

I find it annoying when, in the absence of case law, someone tries to announce there own "ruling," and the wrong ruling at that.

 

I prefer to stick with the facts, not conjecture and speculation.

 

In addition, it is harmful to perpetuate this myth. We would all be better off if every thread mentioning it were deleted.

 

I meant to give this post a positive reputation but hit the negative by accident on my EVO phone.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

If you get pulled over, you dont have to tell them anything about where you are going or coming from. Dont speak about your origin or destination without first consulting a lawyer, even if it means sitting in a cell overnight.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

+1 I feel bad for the people behind me when I leave CR. I am always under 45 mph but I will pull off the road once there is a big line of cars.There are a bunch of police on that road .It must be a big earner for speeders.

Yup, high traffic, a reason to make the speed limit low, and a fun road to drive on spell $$$ for municipalities. Rt. 23 is the same way.

[winki 0]

I guess we wouldn't be covered driving to Newark to fly out either then?

 

Indeed. If NJ residents truly were landlocked then what's to stop Port Authority from arresting everyone flying with a handgun? I've left Newark several times with handguns and never had an issue (but I am very careful to comply with all TSA guidelines of course).

 

I know there is a lot of emphasis in the gun owner community about "right to carry" but I think it'd be a victory if gun owners could just get "right to transport". In the absence of any criminal intent, following proper storage, and possession of an FID, why have a witch hunt? I wish our legislators could do something about that. It's jacked up.

[mipafox 438]

Indeed. If NJ residents truly were landlocked then what's to stop Port Authority from arresting everyone flying with a handgun? I've left Newark several times with handguns and never had an issue (but I am very careful to comply with all TSA guidelines of course).

 

I know there is a lot of emphasis in the gun owner community about "right to carry" but I think it'd be a victory if gun owners could just get "right to transport". In the absence of any criminal intent, following proper storage, and possession of an FID, why have a witch hunt? I wish our legislators could do something about that. It's jacked up.

I've flown into and out of many states with handguns. Including Cali. None have ever asked me for proof of legal possession or carry. Because that is not the job of TSA.

 

But I haven’t flown out of NJ, NY, IL, or MD in quite awhile, and I certainly won’t.

[Bob B 103]

I meant to give this post a positive reputation but hit the negative by accident on my EVO phone.

 

No problem. By doing so, you actually helped me catch a spelling error. lol

[ajtesq 11]

That whole thread is a search for the boogeyman. Although it wouldn't surprise me if a prosecutor in NJ attempted such a thing, it would clearly be a folly.

 

I find it annoying when, in the absence of case law, someone tries to announce their own "ruling," and the wrong ruling at that.

 

I prefer to stick with the facts, not conjecture and speculation.

 

In addition, it is harmful to perpetuate this myth. We would all be better off if every thread mentioning it were deleted.

 

 

I wouldn't mind some more info on what 'facts' we have to draw from on the issue. Conjecture and speculation are all that is available and to my knowledge there is no NJ precedent for this situation. There are no rulings on the issue. We all know and agree that NJ state laws are vague... do you want to be the test case for this? I don't.

 

It hasn't been established that FOPA protects residents of the origin state within their origin state. 'Passing through' is just that... not a shelter from the law of your state of domicile / residence.

[Bob B 103]

I wouldn't mind some more info on what 'facts' we have to draw from on the issue. Conjecture and speculation are all that is available and to my knowledge there is no NJ precedent for this situation. There are no rulings on the issue. We all know and agree that NJ state laws are vague... do you want to be the test case for this? I don't.

 

It hasn't been established that FOPA protects residents of the origin state within their origin state. 'Passing through' is just that... not a shelter from the law of your state of domicile / residence.

 

We have more than conjecture and speculation. We have the law itself:

 

§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

http://www.law.corne...26---A000-.html

 

 

I wouldn't want to be the defendant in any test case, but, I also wouldn't want to be the prosecutor that would try something that stupid. I mean, think about it -- as a prosecutor, you would really have to be dumber than a bag of rocks to attempt to prosecute someone with no criminal intent, no criminal history, with a FID card and a permit to carry, who is leaving the state (or returning) with his legally purchased and legally owned gun unloaded and locked in the trunk.

 

There would have to be a perfect storm of stupidity. First you have to do something to get pulled over. Then you have to make the mistake of allowing the LEO to search your vehicle. Then the LEO has to be stupid enough to arrest you after verifying that you have an FID and a valid out of state carry permit. And, lastly, the prosecutor has to be stupid enough to pursue the case.

 

To put it in perspective, the chances of getting killed in a car accident are 5,000 to 1, while the chances of that perfect storm of stupidity actually happening are probably greater than 100,000 to 1. If you are that worried, you probably shouldn't even get in your car.

[ajtesq 11]

We have more than conjecture and speculation. We have the law itself:

 

http://www.law.corne...26---A000-.html

 

 

I wouldn't want to be the defendant in any test case, but, I also wouldn't want to be the prosecutor that would try something that stupid. I mean, think about it -- as a prosecutor, you would really have to be dumber than a bag of rocks to attempt to prosecute someone with no criminal intent, no criminal history, with a FID card and a permit to carry, who is leaving the state (or returning) with his legally purchased and legally owned gun unloaded and locked in the trunk.

 

There would have to be a perfect storm of stupidity. First you have to do something to get pulled over. Then you have to make the mistake of allowing the LEO to search your vehicle. Then the LEO has to be stupid enough to arrest you after verifying that you have an FID and a valid out of state carry permit. And, lastly, the prosecutor has to be stupid enough to pursue the case.

 

To put it in perspective, the chances of getting killed in a car accident are 5,000 to 1, while the chances of that perfect storm of stupidity actually happening are probably greater than 100,000 to 1. If you are that worried, you probably shouldn't even get in your car.

 

 

My issue is still that we cannot lawfully "carry" in NJ without an NJ ccw permit or via one of the exceptions such as 'to the range'. Legally Posess, of course. 'Posess and carry'... probably not.

 

I do completely agree that it would be a ridiculously unlikely scenario. As a personal preference I like to have more surety as to the legality of my actions rather than rely on the fact that I likely won't be caught.

 

That being said, I'm still going for my FL permit soon. Maybe they'll open up a firearms lane next to the EZ pass on the bridges so I can pull over and properly stowe / lock the gun before crossing the border.

[ajtesq 11]

another thought:

 

Open carry is also legal in Pennsylvania without a permit. If the protection of § 926A applies, than there would be no need to get a FL permit at all if one wished to open carry. I personally don't believe the protection / exception applies, but it makes for an interesting scenario.

[Anselmo 87]

another thought:

 

Open carry is also legal in Pennsylvania without a permit. If the protection of § 926A applies, than there would be no need to get a FL permit at all if one wished to open carry. I personally don't believe the protection / exception applies, but it makes for an interesting scenario.

 

You could carry a >15 round magazine through NJ with the Federal protection. If it is legal where you started and legal where you're going.

[Dan 177]

I know its played out , and he is no poster-boy for us, but isn't Aiken a perfect example of being caught in NJ's gun law fly-trap? Everything else aside, the guy didn't appear to be out looking for trouble. Just caught up in a very unfortunate circumstance.

 

Also, not to mention Ryan in NYC who got aquitted of all charges via jury nullification for illegal possession. This kind of crap does happen more than we care to think about in NJ and other states with illegal gun laws.

 

My point in all this is that we should not have to rely on "Sure it may not be legal, but what are the odds of it happening, or just say you are going <insert xyz exemption for HG travel in NJ>" as our defense. Clearly intrastate travel with a HG must be under NJ's exemptions, and FOPA doesn't kick in until you cross NJ's borders constituting interstate travel. The question is how do you get the HG to the border if you are not traveling with from a NJ origination under a NJ exemption? It is a huge legal gray area and must be delt with along with the rest of NJ's unconstitutional gun laws.

[Bob B 103]

My issue is still that we cannot lawfully "carry" in NJ without an NJ ccw permit or via one of the exceptions such as 'to the range'. Legally Posess, of course. 'Posess and carry'... probably not.

 

I do completely agree that it would be a ridiculously unlikely scenario. As a personal preference I like to have more surety as to the legality of my actions rather than rely on the fact that I likely won't be caught.

 

That being said, I'm still going for my FL permit soon. Maybe they'll open up a firearms lane next to the EZ pass on the bridges so I can pull over and properly stowe / lock the gun before crossing the border.

 

 

another thought:

 

Open carry is also legal in Pennsylvania without a permit. If the protection of § 926A applies, than there would be no need to get a FL permit at all if one wished to open carry. I personally don't believe the protection / exception applies, but it makes for an interesting scenario.

 

 

 

I know its played out , and he is no poster-boy for us, but isn't Aiken a perfect example of being caught in NJ's gun law fly-trap? Everything else aside, the guy didn't appear to be out looking for trouble. Just caught up in a very unfortunate circumstance.

 

Also, not to mention Ryan in NYC who got aquitted of all charges via jury nullification for illegal possession. This kind of crap does happen more than we care to think about in NJ and other states with illegal gun laws.

 

My point in all this is that we should not have to rely on "Sure it may not be legal, but what are the odds of it happening, or just say you are going <insert xyz exemption for HG travel in NJ>" as our defense. Clearly intrastate travel with a HG must be under NJ's exemptions, and FOPA doesn't kick in until you cross NJ's borders constituting interstate travel. The question is how do you get the HG to the border if you are not traveling with from a NJ origination under a NJ exemption? It is a huge legal gray area and must be delt with along with the rest of NJ's unconstitutional gun laws.

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that it is not legal but you would not likely get caught. My argument is that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in your trunk, going from your residence in NJ (where you can legally possess and carry) to PA (where you can legally possess and carry) appears to be perfectly legal, based on 926A and it is highly unlikely that the perfect storm of stupidity would happen where you would end up as a test case.

 

With Aitken there was a legitimate question of whether or not he was moving at the time, which would impact whether the transportation of the handguns was intrastate or interstate, intrastate only being legal by exemption.

 

Ryan was traveling to NY, a place where he could not legally possess and carry a handgun.

 

Both of those cases had legitimate questions of the legality of the person's actions. In this scenario, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you can legally possess and carry at the origin and destination. That is what makes this scenario different.

[Dan 177]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that it is not legal but you would not likely get caught. My argument is that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in your trunk, going from your residence in NJ (where you can legally possess and carry) to PA (where you can legally possess and carry) appears to be perfectly legal, based on 926A and it is highly unlikely that the perfect storm of stupidity would happen where you would end up as a test case.

 

With Aitken there was a legitimate question of whether or not he was moving at the time, which would impact whether the transportation of the handguns was intrastate or interstate, intrastate only being legal by exemption.

 

Ryan was traveling to NY, a place where he could not legally possess and carry a handgun.

 

Both of those cases had legitimate questions of the legality of the person's actions. In this scenario, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you can legally possess and carry at the origin and destination. That is what makes this scenario different.

 

Hi Bob,

 

I get what you are saying in the probability of there being a situation. I still do; however, have serious doubts on 926A protections under these circumstances. I understand the legal where you start (home), legal where you are going (PA) part. Now lets take a look at 926a as the "Interstate Transportation of Firearms". It is not a "Inter-<insert legal place like your home> Transportation of Firearms".

 

Here is an important quote from the OP's linked article. It is not in the wording of 926a, but this information is available to judges making decisions. My point is, when you are traveling to the NJ border from your NJ home (place where you legally posess a HG), I propose that you would need to be transporting the HG under NJ laws and exemptions, until the act of crossing the border takes place. The logic here is that people cannot use 926a as an excuse to circumvent local laws in their resident state. Otherwise, everyone could drive around with HG's locked in the trunk and just say they are going to PA or some other "legal destination". Doesn't work that way. 926a is designed to kick in after you leave your originating state's boundaries. Intrastate travel while in the originating and destination state must adhere to that state's gun local gun laws. 926a protects specifically in transit to be able to transport through intermediate states, like an A to D trip, 926a protects through states B and C.

 

 

131 Cong. Rec. S9101-05 (July 9, 1985)(statement of Senator Metzenbaum)

Quote: Representative McCollum stated that the provision applies "only after [individuals] leave the boundaries of their State or local jurisdiction," since §926A applies to the interstate transportation of firearms Representative McCollum furthers stated the provision" does not modify the State or local laws of the place or origin or the jurisdiction where the trip ends in any way."

[Dan 177]

double post please delete

[Bob B 103]

I hear what you're saying Dan, but the OP ignores other legal concepts in order to reach his conclusion. That quote may communicate that one Senator's idea of the original intent of the law, but it does not define it's final or complete application. That quote is not a legal standard. As an example, I would point to Staples v. U.S. where SCOTUS rules that in order to be guilty of a firearms related crime, mens rea is a required component of being found guilty. In other words, you must have the intent to commit a crime. In addition, the legal definition of "interstate" would come into play. There may be a long history of case law that clearly defines exactly when an interstate activity begins. The OP's research is incomplete on that point. Imagine the implications in other areas, such as interstate commerce, or insurance, or contract law if the OP's proposed definition does not comport with a long standing legal definition. There also may be legal history addressing how a state may or may not "accidentally" regulate an activity outside its borders. This is ignored as well. There is also a legal standard called the "reasonable man test." Did the person take "reasonable care" when engaging in the activity? This is ignored. There is the fact that under the OP's interpretation, leaving NJ under such circumstances is illegal, but returning is perfectly legal. Could a reasonable person expect that to be the case?

 

I'm sure there are other legal concepts that would also apply that are not accounted for.

 

It is dangerous for someone to reach such a conclusion and then announce it as though it is complete legal research and a valid legal standard.

 

The fact is, to our knowledge, after decades of the possibility, and surely thousands upon thousands of people engaging in the activity over that period of time, no one has ever been convicted of a crime under such circumstances and I'm sure that we can all agree that no reasonable person could expect to come to the OP's conclusion after reading 926A. In fact, it is the OP's contention that the conclusion is unreasonable, hence his frustration.

 

The one thing I agree with is that there is a modicum of doubt, because there is no test case to give absolute surety one way or the other. In the absence of that, I have to go with the reasonableness standard.

 

Of course, I wouldn't fault anyone for playing it safe. It's the proclamation of an unqualified person based on incomplete research that bothers me, precisely because it creates a standard that does not currently exist. The laws are already ridiculously restrictive. Do we have to add to the problem by creating new ones ourselves? Have we become that conditioned? It's embarrassing. The OP is building a nice new cage. I choose not to climb in. The more people that reject his conclusion, the better off we will be.

[Malsua 1,422]

There is the fact that under the OP's interpretation, leaving NJ under such circumstances is illegal

 

The statutes that permit transport inside NJ don't speak to the final destination. There is no interpretation of the NJ transport statutes that do not permit the firearms from leaving the state.

 

Since I've been out of town and offline, I've not commented on this thread. I'm sure someone will groan when they see my name

 

My contention all along is that while FOPA may be an affirmative defense, within New Jersey, the state can still arrest and detain you for violating NJ statues. You may spend days in jail before ROR and significantly lighter in the pocket before it's all done.

 

As stated above, it would take a significant number of blunders on the gun owner's part to limit this to a test of this particular set of statutes. Best to be aimed at a range and change your mind later once you're outside the boundaries of the state.

[PK90 3,570]

Of course, I wouldn't fault anyone for playing it safe. It's the proclamation of an unqualified person based on incomplete research that bothers me, precisely because it creates a standard that does not currently exist. The laws are already ridiculously restrictive. Do we have to add to the problem by creating new ones ourselves? Have we become that conditioned? It's embarrassing. The OP is building a nice new cage. I choose not to climb in. The more people that reject his conclusion, the better off we will be.

 

+1

 

I guess I can't sell firearms interstate because NJ law doesn't allow me to transport them to the Post Office or UPS Center. All dispositions MUST take place at my premise location. Hell, even federal law says this.

 

One can not be so paranoid as to break every law down to its minor details and follow this fine line, because the line eventual disappears.

 

Again I say, NJ gunowners are their worse enemy.

[Dan 177]

I could be over analyzing this situation, but I am also just interpreting the laws we have to play with as I see them. I do reject NJ's current gun laws, at the same time I follow them until they can be changed. I would stand behind anyone if they ever found themselves in this situation, and would argue until blue in the face that they are protected under 2A and 926a. My argument would entail that 926a explains "any place" to "any place" with the origination and destination are both legal, as in my home to PA. I would also include the definition of Interstate Commerce as used in Federal Interstate Commerce laws as being

Interstate or foreign commerce” means commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State...

.. from ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations 2007 (also found in other interstate commerce laws).

 

The reasoning for my apprehension and subscribing to doubt is that this is untested and uncharted waters, so I cannot proclaim that 926a will definitely provide adequate coverage for transporting a HG from NJ to PA for the purpose of self defense and carry in that state.

 

Possession of a HG in this state is illegal except in a few places and under specific circumstances while traveling. One would have to argue that 926a protections kick in the minute someone leaves an exempted location such as your home (aka a "place") on their way to another state where possession is legal. This would be the test case law that we need in order to put this to rest.

[Bob B 103]

^^^

I agree with all of that, Dan. I think we all agree that it is presumptively legal to bring your handgun to PA (unloaded, in the trunk, until over the boarder, in order to legally carry in accordance with PA law), we all just fear NJ's long standing track record of arresting and prosecuting first and asking questions later, Revell, being an example. Hmmm, being coerced from engaging in a fundamental right through the use of fear and intimidation under the color of law... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the definition of oppression.

[Dan 177]

^^

being coerced from engaging in a fundamental right through the use of fear and intimidation under the color of law... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the definition of oppression

 

+1 to that Bob

[vladtepes 1,060]

^^^

I agree with all of that, Dan. I think we all agree that it is presumptively legal to bring your handgun to PA (unloaded, in the trunk, until over the boarder, in order to legally carry in accordance with PA law), we all just fear NJ's long standing track record of arresting and prosecuting first and asking questions later, Revell, being an example. Hmmm, being coerced from engaging in a fundamental right through the use of fear and intimidation under the color of law... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the definition of oppression.

 

 

can you show me that endless long standing history? or is it a dozen or so cases? not picking on you.. but it is verbiage like "NJ's long standing track record of arresting and prosecuting first and asking questions later" that propagates all this fear.. it is statements like that that CAUSE people to ask ridiculous questions.. if people didn't hear constantly about how they were going to get arrested for following the law.. maybe they wouldn't believe half of the "urban legend NJ gun laws"..

[Bob B 103]

can you show me that endless long standing history? or is it a dozen or so cases? not picking on you.. but it is verbiage like "NJ's long standing track record of arresting and prosecuting first and asking questions later" that propagates all this fear.. it is statements like that that CAUSE people to ask ridiculous questions.. if people didn't hear constantly about how they were going to get arrested for following the law.. maybe they wouldn't believe half of the "urban legend NJ gun laws"..

 

Pelleteri, Revell and Aitken. Longstanding. Not endless. But, your point is valid.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Pelleteri, Revell and Aitken. Longstanding. Not endless. But, your point is valid.

 

I appreciate you not taking that comment as an insult.. and your response is appreciated..

 

and sadly at least one of those individuals was pretty guilty... maybe it is time for a little shift in mindset.. instead of continuing to scare people away from firearms ownership by telling them how anti gun the state is... maybe we should just focus on facts and concrete issues.. "we want the AWB repealed because all it does is inconvenience law abiding firearms owners.. it does nothing to actually curb crime... so the whole concept of the law (to make people safer) is a farce..." just saying...

[mrjam2jab 9]

another thought:

 

Open carry is also legal in Pennsylvania without a permit. If the protection of § 926A applies, than there would be no need to get a FL permit at all if one wished to open carry. I personally don't believe the protection / exception applies, but it makes for an interesting scenario.

 

 

Without a permit, PA has most of the same to/from restrictions as NJ. There is no open carry within a vehicle.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I can't believe this thread is 3 pages long. Going to Cabela's on Saturday, can't wait to test out my new rig!

[stever 16]

I can't believe this thread is 3 pages long. Going to Cabela's on Saturday, can't wait to test out my new rig!

 

 

OMG!!! Don't get caught!

[Bob B 103]

I can't believe this thread is 3 pages long. Going to Cabela's on Saturday, can't wait to test out my new rig!

 

That's the spirit!

[ianargent 7]

Ok, so hypothetically...

 

Let's say I'm on my way home from Philly. I'm driving south on Route 55. Get pulled over for whatever reason. Now let's say it's 11 at night. State Trooper runs my info and then he asks if he can search my car. Now as far as I know this will play out one of a few ways. I give permission, he searches, finds handgun, or I tell him its there and give permission to search. Or I decline. Now I don't know what would happen if I decline. Would they just automatically impound my car and get a warrant? I'm fairly new to this whole thing and the laws are nuts. It's alot to take in. So what is the best course of action in a situation like this? I've been pulled over a few times but never had an officer ask to search my car. Even taking the guns out of the equation I wouldn't know what the right/best thing to do would be. To me it seems like a double edged sword, if you give permission to search or deny permission.

 

It is unconstitutional by the NJ constitution per the NJ Supreme Court for a police officer to request a consent search of an automobile incident to a traffic stop without having Reasonable and Articulatable Suspicion: "the NJ Supreme Court decision in State v. Carty requires that an officer possess reasonable and articulable suspicion that evidence of a crime or contraband could be found in the car before a request for consent can be made."

 

(I'm pretty sure this is why I spent 45 minutes close to 20 years ago answering "No" to a cop asking me if I had ever smoked Marijuana).