Jump to content
alowerlevel

Ocean City Police Charge Man with Weapons Offenses

Recommended Posts

You guys are correct.

Of course the report is lacking quite a few details but I would not be surprised if this guy had a limited mental capacity,

 

 

IQ and Crime

 

This is not wholly accepted as truth, but it is generally accepted and found true most of the time.

 

I don't know if you guys are sick of hearing me say it but, poor people without access to mental health care may never get the care they need if indeed they have a mental illness or limited intelligence. This is something I think about when I am forced to consider that anyone should be allowed to have a firearm, no questions asked.

 

furthermore, from the same link and for further discussion's sake;

 

You seem to be drawing a direct link between low IQ and mental illness. If so - your assumptions are more than faulty. There are many highly intelligent people that suffer with various mental illnesses from Depression to Bipolar disorder to Paranoid Schizophrenia. There are many people of very low intelligence that have no mental illnesses at all.

 

Intelligence is over-rated, common sense is a far better measure of a man... (in my opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because once a person has been punished, and paid their debt to society, or been sick and gotten better, they should be able to enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. I think you're underestimating first off how easy it is to become a felon, and how many bogus laws can label one as such. Same goes for being disqualified due to mental illness, and not to mention "domestic violence" in which pretty much all it takes is a crazy girlfriend to call the cops and say you hit her, and you can kiss owning firearms goodbye for the rest of your life.

 

There are multitude of ridiculous laws that serve no purpose and ruin things for a great number of people. Not to mention, if someone is so dangerous in the first place, that they cannot be allowed access to weapons, then they should not be on the street at all in the first place.

 

And last but not least, what makes you think felons don't get firearms anyways? Everyone always talks about the "corner FFL" and imagines some shady gun dealer in the ghetto selling to gang bangers. But it's not that simple. You don't think thousands of felons simply buy a gun off a buddy, or family member, in some regular town in some other state? You don't think felons walk right into a gun show in GA and buy a gun off some private seller there? You don't think felons meet people off of gun forums and do face to face private sales? How naive can someone be to seriously think the only way to illegally obtain guns is in a dangerous urban ghetto? There's a much softer side to illegal transfers. Guns are a pervasive, common part of everyday life in the vast majority of the USA, obtaining one is quite simple.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, this is the same argument Rosie O'Donnel makes to argue that the second amendment protects only muskets.

 

You clearly have no idea how our legal system works. And what the hell are u talking about rosie o'donnel..... We are not stuck in the past, our society adjusts to current time and knowledge. My point was merely stating that, and it has nothing to do with any biased opinion, just pointing out a major flaw in your example.

 

you must be joking on the account of someone paying debt to society or being rehabilitated, jail doesnt help anyone it makes them worse 95% of time....in fact they have done nothing but stolen from it the entire time in prison we pay for there stay.... and haha u think they get released because they turned into angles? u gotta be kidding right? NO. they boot who ever they can..legally...to make room for the next set of scum bags... last time i checked becoming a felon was pretty easy, all u have to do is be a dumb a** and not use your brain. I'm interested to hear some of these bogus felony's you speak of..

 

 

The whole just because they have them argument, again, is retarded. Felons are caught with guns all the time and go back to jail...what is thread about>? which just illustrates my point why they shouldn't have them... People who have there licenses revoked or suspend get caught driving all the time... ANd how about the 1 in 7 who arent even insured if there gonna do it anyway by your logic we should just let them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Evidence? In a Domestic Violence?

 

Seriously, all it takes is a crazy girlfriend/wife to call the cops. Many places are must arrest, meaning if there's a call for DV, there must be arrest. Then it's up to the prosecutor to charge or not. Prosecutors love DV charges; and fear public backlash, so they charge almost always. Case goes to court, and almost always sides with the woman, regardless of how little evidence. No judge wants to risk hitting the papers as the guy who let a "wife beater" off. I've done some reading on the subject and there are countless horror stories.

 

You may say "due process" or "rule of law" or "evidence" but these terms are virtually unheard of when it comes to Domestic Violence - from every step from the phone call to the courtroom, it's guilty until proven innocent for the man.

 

Counter suits cost thousands of dollars - something a cash strapped guy who just got locked up for domestic violence rarely has. And there aren't many organizations looking to offer free legal defense to accused domestic abusers.

Didnt you know? everyone in prison is innocent..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My positions are quite clear and contained in the pages of this thread. Thay are not accusations and i am quite prepared to discuss them if you are prepared to read them. I am not interested in saying the same thing over and over again ad nauseum . It is boring to the forum and a waste of my time.

 

So what do you want to know.

 

For starters, how would you go about insuring they do not have unfettered access to firearms? Especially in light of a USSC decision that prevents them from being prosecuted for being felons in possession of unregistered firearms because registering them would violate their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. They already do, and always will, have unfettered access to firearms, or any other weapon for that matter. Gun control laws only affect the law abiding, always have, always will. That's the purpose of them.....to control the law abiding, for the law breaking cannot be controlled by mere words on paper.

I would also like to know if you can reveal what purpose it serves to willingly go, hat in hand, to your local gestapo office, and beg them for their permission to exercise you god-given, constitutionally protected, American civil right to keep and bear arms?? And while we are on the subject, and to borrow from a website blog I occasion, NO law, anywhere, ever, has prevented a single crime. They merely define them. Mere possession of an inanimate object, any inanimate object, does not, and should not, constitute a crime, for there is no victim to the possession. The act constitutes the crime. This is why back in the 20's they needed to amend the constitution to pass prohibition, and then again to repeal it. Because criminalizing possession of things does not jive with our fundamental constitutional principles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be drawing a direct link between low IQ and mental illness. If so - your assumptions are more than faulty. There are many highly intelligent people that suffer with various mental illnesses from Depression to Bipolar disorder to Paranoid Schizophrenia. There are many people of very low intelligence that have no mental illnesses at all.

 

Intelligence is over-rated, common sense is a far better measure of a man... (in my opinion)

 

No, I did not meant for it to come of as such. Not at all. Believe me when I say I know exacly what you mean and totally agree. Mental illness is not at all like a low IQ.

 

BUT, the context was that the person in the OP's article did not seem to have the faculties to come up with a better cover story than anyone else here would. I suggest that this person may in fact be legitimatly slower than normal. It does seem to fit to me, but I am not going to take a few ideas from classes I took and say "eureka!" BUT, It just seems like it could be true based on the story - cops don't want to say the previous conviction- possible felonious escape charge, admitting his own guilt without any thought that he could be arrested for what he says.

 

Apart from that, and perhaps I should have said it earlier, I do firmly believe that everything anti-gunners fear about society having firearms stems from both professional and armchair psychology. A lot of this is not easily dismissed. We gun owners have to come to terms with the notion that 2nd ammendment, taken in its most literal terms, means that the mentally ill can buy a firearm.

 

<edit> not to mention that some of us are willing to say with a straight face that three years in jail for a felony is the perfect way to wash clean a previous crime.. might as well give them a snubbie as a parting gift.>

 

I do not believe that the anti-gun crowd has caught on to this or they would have articulated it as such, but as a son of two psychologists I can tell you that it floats in the air and we have to be ready for that arguement to be raised.

 

I for one, do not believe that the answer is to say it was better in 1967. If we seek a true common acceptance of the 2nd ammendment and not endless litigation, WE have to be ready for the inevitable introduction of this arguement. And when I say ready for it, I mean we have to try to not sound like idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, how would you go about insuring they do not have unfettered access to firearms? Especially in light of a USSC decision that prevents them from being prosecuted for being felons in possession of unregistered firearms because registering them would violate their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. They already do, and always will, have unfettered access to firearms, or any other weapon for that matter. Gun control laws only affect the law abiding, always have, always will. That's the purpose of them.....to control the law abiding, for the law breaking cannot be controlled by mere words on paper.

I would also like to know if you can reveal what purpose it serves to willingly go, hat in hand, to your local gestapo office, and beg them for their permission to exercise you god-given, constitutionally protected, American civil right to keep and bear arms?? And while we are on the subject, and to borrow from a website blog I occasion, NO law, anywhere, ever, has prevented a single crime. They merely define them. Mere possession of an inanimate object, any inanimate object, does not, and should not, constitute a crime, for there is no victim to the possession. The act constitutes the crime. This is why back in the 20's they needed to amend the constitution to pass prohibition, and then again to repeal it. Because criminalizing possession of things does not jive with our fundamental constitutional principles.

 

 

Dude, I am a member of the NRA and I read all the literature. I am not that guy. chill... seriously.

 

But as a member of the NRA and live-er of my own life I find their script kind of flawed. I am just trying to introduce a few things I have thought strongly about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep in mind gentlemen... We are all one pissed of cop and over zelous prosecutor away from being felons ourselves. If you follow the the by the letter they can still drag you through court... Arrest, indictment, and trial. Remember there is no PTI for gun crimes. So good luck.

 

 

Get with the program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep in mind gentlemen... We are all one pissed of cop and over zelous prosecutor away from being felons ourselves. If you follow the the by the letter they can still drag you through court... Arrest, indictment, and trial. Remember there is no PTI for gun crimes. So good luck.

 

 

Get with the program.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Among bogus things perfectly law abiding gun owners can find themselves felons over:

 

- Stopping for food on the way to/from the range. How'd you like to never own guns, vote, or seek gainful employment again for the rest of your life because you rolled up a Wendy's drive thru with a locked, unloaded handgun in the trunk? You think every single "law abiding" gun owner is aware of this law?

 

- Looking at the IO M1 debacle, there may very well be guns that could be considered "substantially identical" sitting right in your safe despite your common sense understand of NJ's law telling you they aren't. Following the AG's logic in that case, many other models of guns would also be illegal. The forum's censorship of this matter is very telling in how confident many people feel that their guns are not "substantially identical"

 

- If a single hollow point were to roll under your seat and be discovered a week, month, year, later, while you're out on a milk run. Seriously, read the hollow point bullet exceptions. And tell me something never rolled under your seat by accident.

 

- The fact that there is mounting evidence that bringing your handgun to PA for your little Cabela's Carry Adventure may not be cover under NJ law or FOPA and be an illegal carry. This is becoming more widely acknowledged as you see more and more people here saying they're "always on the way to a range" or telling each other to "look for a range in the area" which is essentially admission that the whole thing is just thin ice in the grey zone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin foil hats, huh?

 

I guess you don't know much about our laws. I'm not telling you the president is a Reptoid, or that the chem trails make you sick. I'm giving you solid examples of felonies from NJ statutes. Feel free to look any of them up. Also look up the Graves Amendment.

 

I know it's hard to stomach that Mr. Joe Schmoe accountant from the upper class burbs can land himself in the same place as armed robbers and rapists because he stopped for a burger on the way home from the range. Really, it sounds ridiculous. But the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction and unfortunately, this time it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Among bogus things perfectly law abiding gun owners can find themselves felons over:

 

- Stopping for food on the way to/from the range. How'd you like to never own guns, vote, or seek gainful employment again for the rest of your life because you rolled up a Wendy's drive thru with a locked, unloaded handgun in the trunk? You think every single "law abiding" gun owner is aware of this law?

 

- Looking at the IO M1 debacle, there may very well be guns that could be considered "substantially identical" sitting right in your safe despite your common sense understand of NJ's law telling you they aren't. Following the AG's logic in that case, many other models of guns would also be illegal. The forum's censorship of this matter is very telling in how confident many people feel that their guns are not "substantially identical"

 

- If a single hollow point were to roll under your seat and be discovered a week, month, year, later, while you're out on a milk run. Seriously, read the hollow point bullet exceptions. And tell me something never rolled under your seat by accident.

 

- The fact that there is mounting evidence that bringing your handgun to PA for your little Cabela's Carry Adventure may not be cover under NJ law or FOPA and be an illegal carry. This is becoming more widely acknowledged as you see more and more people here saying they're "always on the way to a range" or telling each other to "look for a range in the area" which is essentially admission that the whole thing is just thin ice in the grey zone

 

I'll even add one more item to this list, because I had it occur to me, though luckily by pure luck I found it before anything bad could occur....

 

Ever buy a used car?? What if you buy a used vehicle, and the previous owner was a drug user/buyer/seller/dealer?? What if that car was not thoroughly cleaned prior to you buying it?? What if you get stopped, and the ensuing officer claims he smells something funny, and opts to bring the dogs out to sniff around?? You are not a drug user so you have no issue with this.....until the dogs signal. Then they tear apart your car, find whatever was left behind by the previous owner, and process you. Do you seriously think they are going to believe that what they found is not yours, especially whne they probably found it under the carpet, or behind one of the interior panels?? I bring this up because after acquiring my present vehicle, I had cause to tear the entire interior but the dash out of it due to a water leak. Guess what I found while removing the interior? So now, due entirely to circumstances totally beyond your control, you could instantly become a drug felon, and lose your rights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin foil hats, huh?

 

I guess you don't know much about our laws. I'm not telling you the president is a Reptoid, or that the chem trails make you sick. I'm giving you solid examples of felonies from NJ statutes. Feel free to look any of them up. Also look up the Graves Amendment.

 

I know it's hard to stomach that Mr. Joe Schmoe accountant from the upper class burbs can land himself in the same place as armed robbers and rapists because he stopped for a burger on the way home from the range. Really, it sounds ridiculous. But the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction and unfortunately, this time it is.

 

Your guess is wrong. Your high and mighty attitude as well as your intense paranoia and insistence on proving that all of us "could" become felons belies the fact that THE SHYTBAG WHO THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRED TO WAS NOT A NICE GUY - HE WAS A FULL OUT SHYTBAG WHO GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. LET HIS AZS ROT IN JAIL.

 

I'm done with this thread AND you - you are now on my ignore list. I can't bear to listen to your drivel. I'm not an ostrich with his head in the sand, I know the laws. I've managed not to get hung up by them for many years, I don't see why that would change in the future. :thsmiley_deadhorse:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too much speculation and what if statements being made here.

 

Quote

 

 

lets not forget that he was also a CONVICTED FELON

 

 

So what?

 

If someone commits a crime, serves their punishment, and released, why should they not be a regular person again? Why must they be reduced to a second class citizen? The man paid his dues, he should be free the same as you and I.

 

So what? Would you be saying that if he had raped your daughter? You are jumping to this guy's defense without even knowing why he was a convicted felon. That's not a very smart position. I guess you would be in support of all felons owning firearms. "Gun Owners Support Felons Owning Firearms" is not a way to convince peopel to come over to our side.

 

And if someone is really so dangerous to the point where once they are out of prison, society must worry they will get a hold of a weapon and do something bad again, then why is that person out on the street anyway?

 

The criminal gets out of prison because he served his time or paroled. You seem versed on the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments and believe in literal translation. I suggest you read the 8th dealing with cruel and unusual punishment. Keeping people in prison because they were a danger to society was practiced by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Sadaam Hussein. That would be your approach? You would be the one to decide who's dangerous and who's not? I don't like the system as it is but its better than anyone else's.

 

And secondly, do you know how easy it is to become a felon? Stopping for a hamburger on the way home from the gun range in NJ can make you a felon too.

 

By letter of the law, yes. In actual practice, no. I started shooting in NJ about 40 years ago, have met thousands of shooters, paid attention to news regarding firearms, and have never met or heard anyone arrested for stopping for a hamburger on the way home from the range. If I have missed that one please cite me a case.

 

Do you even know what his previous crime was?

 

As I said before neither do you. Defending him at this time is not a wise move. Someone found:

 

not quite sure what it means but it seems he was arrested in 2006 for "an open warrant for First Degree Escape"

 

First Degree Escape would mean he used or threatened force or deadly force to effect his escape. A fine citizen to defend,

 

One more thing for y'all spouting "the law is the law"...would you all have cheered the arrest of Rosa Parks for violating the "law" by refusing to move to the back of the bus??

 

Rosa Parks has no bearing on what is being discussed here. What she was involved in was a well planned protest where the NAACP lawyers were on board before it happened. She volunteered to get herself arrested as they wanted someone who was as harmless as possible.

 

OK, then here's a scenario for you.

 

We can post scenarios all day to support either side of an argument.

 

If you want to protest something you do everything possible to avoid giving anyone a reason. That's civil disobedience as practiced by Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

 

Your empty pistol protest should be an empty holster protest. Your civil rights examples are from accurate having lived through that era. FYI all protests in the civil rights era were not escalated to violence by the police. Did you ever read about the Black Panthers or the riots in Newark, Elizabeth, or Watts back in the 60s?

 

Or would you cheer for the SWAT team that shows up to gun them down?

 

Has that happened and I missed it? Or is that some secret plan that fell out of the black helicopter you found? Please verify your source.

 

I support the right of everyone to keep and bear arms.

 

So you've asnwered my previous question. If someone raped and killed your daughter you would support their right to keep and bear arms. Okay that's your stance?

 

There are many other more valid things to fight for before anyone considers felons with guns.

 

Dodge and insult - not surprising, no one ever actually answers that one.

 

I will answer your question when you show me proof that that is the plan to deal with protests and you more clearly define what you call a protest.

 

And last but not least, what makes you think felons don't get firearms anyways?

 

They do get guns. You just want to make it easier for them. As anything else, the illicit gun market is supply and demand. If the demand is up that $35 raven costs $200. You want to make sure they can get if for $35.

 

Stopping for food on the way to/from the range. How'd you like to never own guns, vote, or seek gainful employment again for the rest of your life because you rolled up a Wendy's drive thru with a locked, unloaded handgun in the trunk? You think every single "law abiding" gun owner is aware of this law?

 

You're going one better now and not even getting out of the car. "They" are not all out to get you. Please relate an incident where this has happened.

 

If a single hollow point were to roll under your seat and be discovered a week, month, year, later, while you're out on a milk run. Seriously, read the hollow point bullet exceptions. And tell me something never rolled under your seat by accident./i]

 

Asked this question many times. Please cite me an incident this happened?

 

Tin foil hats, huh?

 

I guess you don't know much about our laws.

 

I only know what I learned in 31 years as a LEO. I never saw anyone arrested for a crime without doing something stupid and thinking they'll get away with it. You can commit a lot of felonies without even trying. Being prosecuted for one takes effort.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Among bogus things perfectly law abiding gun owners can find themselves felons over:

 

- Stopping for food on the way to/from the range. How'd you like to never own guns, vote, or seek gainful employment again for the rest of your life because you rolled up a Wendy's drive thru with a locked, unloaded handgun in the trunk? You think every single "law abiding" gun owner is aware of this law?

 

Please cite where this is illegal. And by illegal I mean illegal, and not a vague misguided interpretation of something with no evidence to back that interpretation up. Tin foil hat as was said by someone else? Indeed.

 

 

- If a single hollow point were to roll under your seat and be discovered a week, month, year, later, while you're out on a milk run. Seriously, read the hollow point bullet exceptions. And tell me something never rolled under your seat by accident.

 

Again, ^^^, this... By the same reasoning, it would be illegal to drive from the store you purchased them in, to your home. Why? Because though it says you can purchase it, and have it at your dwelling, a store is not an exempted location.

 

- The fact that there is mounting evidence that bringing your handgun to PA for your little Cabela's Carry Adventure may not be cover under NJ law or FOPA and be an illegal carry. This is becoming more widely acknowledged as you see more and more people here saying they're "always on the way to a range" or telling each other to "look for a range in the area" which is essentially admission that the whole thing is just thin ice in the grey zone

 

Where is this "mounting evidence"? Is it under that tin foil hat that rolled out from under your seat?

 

 

Now don't take this too seriously, what I am just trying to get at, is the reason there are so many misconception about NJ gun laws, is that because they are so terrible, people think that everything is illegal or whatnot, but often have no evidence to back up their assumptions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll even add one more item to this list, because I had it occur to me, though luckily by pure luck I found it before anything bad could occur....

 

Ever buy a used car?? What if you buy a used vehicle, and the previous owner was a drug user/buyer/seller/dealer?? What if that car was not thoroughly cleaned prior to you buying it?? What if you get stopped, and the ensuing officer claims he smells something funny, and opts to bring the dogs out to sniff around?? You are not a drug user so you have no issue with this.....until the dogs signal. Then they tear apart your car, find whatever was left behind by the previous owner, and process you. Do you seriously think they are going to believe that what they found is not yours, especially whne they probably found it under the carpet, or behind one of the interior panels?? I bring this up because after acquiring my present vehicle, I had cause to tear the entire interior but the dash out of it due to a water leak. Guess what I found while removing the interior? So now, due entirely to circumstances totally beyond your control, you could instantly become a drug felon, and lose your rights.

what did u find a brick of cocaine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Among bogus things perfectly law abiding gun owners can find themselves felons over:

 

- Stopping for food on the way to/from the range. How'd you like to never own guns, vote, or seek gainful employment again for the rest of your life because you rolled up a Wendy's drive thru with a locked, unloaded handgun in the trunk? You think every single "law abiding" gun owner is aware of this law?

 

 

g.All weapons being transported under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section shall be carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported, and in the course of travel shall include only such deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

 

 

Is a stop at Wendy's reasonably necessary? That is very vague. I woke up at 8am, drove to the range at 9am, left the range at 12pm and was very hungry so I stopped for lunch. Is that reasonable? "yes" Was in necessary? "I was hungry." Is a prosecutor going to convince a jury that eating lunch was unreasonable and unnecessary? Are you going to go to prison because you ate lunch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know - want to find out for me?

 

You are heading to the range. If you get stopped, how do you prove you are going to the range? Do you call the range and let them know you are coming so in case you get stopped by the police, you have an alibi? Do you always pay with credit card at range or sign the sign-in sheet to prove you were there so you have an alibi on the way home?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm careless driving while on a return trip from the range. You get nervous because you're stopped with guns in the car. Cop sees nervous and ask to search. You say hey I have guns. Cop searches finds hollow points. You had them during te commission of reckless driving. You pissed of the cop because he feels you jepardized his safety by not saying you had guns from step one. You winde up in cuffs, guns taken, amd enroute to the police station.

 

 

To me that is just a possible as dropping a loaded 30 whatever round mag on the beach...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm careless driving while on a return trip from the range. You get nervous because you're stopped with guns in the car. Cop sees nervous and ask to search. You say hey I have guns. Cop searches finds hollow points. You had them during te commission of reckless driving. You pissed of the cop because he feels you jepardized his safety by not saying you had guns from step one. You winde up in cuffs, guns taken, amd enroute to the police station.

 

 

To me that is just a possible as dropping a loaded 30 whatever round mag on the beach...

 

I just remembered I actually might have a tin foil hat. Would you like to borrow it?

 

Just as possible? When is the last time something like in your scenario happened? Because, oops, turns out someone dropping a loaded 30 whatever round mag on the beach just did.

 

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/police/ocean+city/76130-ocean+city+police+charge+man+weapons+offenses

 

So what is really more likely. Sounds like someone just had holes shot right through their theory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are heading to the range. If you get stopped, how do you prove you are going to the range? Do you call the range and let them know you are coming so in case you get stopped by the police, you have an alibi? Do you always pay with credit card at range or sign the sign-in sheet to prove you were there so you have an alibi on the way home?

 

Another great example.

 

Reminds me of the Brian Aitken case - he had bed sheets, dishes, silverware, and packed boxes in his car, but the judge did not allow this as evidence of him moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what did u find a brick of cocaine?

 

What I found was a certain amount of a controlled dangerous substance tucked(or possibly has fallen there from another spot) up under the edge of the rear cargo floor carpet underneath the jack stowage compartment. No idea it was there, but should the situation have arisen, I guarantee the dogs would have found it, and I would be looking at time for that, as well as possession of weapons during that crime. Do you honestly think they would believe me either at the time sitting on the side of the road, or later in the courtroom, that it was not mine and I had never seen it before??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, seriously..

 

We all know the laws in New Jersey suck and have to change. That is a given.

 

But to take that statement above and turn it into "Felons should be allowed to have guns after they serve their time," is the worst possible logic.

 

 

Focus on getting the silly laws changed, don't be silly deciding which laws are silly.

 

Personally, from all that I have read about the laws in pracice in New Jersey is that the laws regarding firearms are so vague that the officers on the scene are sometimes forced to say "let the judge decide." This means that although not convicted, you still end up arrested and gunless.

 

But again, the answer to that isn't to say convicted felons should be allowed legal access to gun( a federal law) - The answer is to make the NJ laws less vague or remove them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is this "mounting evidence"? Is it under that tin foil hat that rolled out from under your seat?

 

I think you should read this regarding FOPA and Cabela's Carry Adventures:

 

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/140698-fopa-transport-protection-states-origin-destination-unlikely-report.html

 

IMO, after considering all the foregoing as well as court dicta and Congressional Record information provided below, it would be highly imprudent for anyone to rely on §926A protection in the states of origin and destination as the probability of successfully prevailing with an §926A defense is highly unlikely.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is no direct on-point case law. Should you be charged with a firearm transport crime by your state of origin or destination and §926A is your only defense, a trail court has pretty much unfettered ability to rule with any interpretation they may wish to adopt and defend. State courts may or may not apply §926A to their home statutes. If your defense fails then the "most directly available remedial mechanisms for those who are convicted in violation of this statute under the color of state law are direct appeals challenging the criminal conviction in question, and habeas corpus proceedings in both the state and federal courts" Torraco v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 615 F.3d 129, 136 (2d Cir. 2010).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered I actually might have a tin foil hat. Would you like to borrow it?

 

Just as possible? When is the last time something like in your scenario happened? Because, oops, turns out someone dropping a loaded 30 whatever round mag on the beach just did.

 

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/police/ocean+city/76130-ocean+city+police+charge+man+weapons+offenses

 

So what is really more likely. Sounds like someone just had holes shot right through their theory...

 

Your a moron... Did you bother to read what the original post was about in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found was a certain amount of a controlled dangerous substance tucked(or possibly has fallen there from another spot) up under the edge of the rear cargo floor carpet underneath the jack stowage compartment. No idea it was there, but should the situation have arisen, I guarantee the dogs would have found it, and I would be looking at time for that, as well as possession of weapons during that crime. Do you honestly think they would believe me either at the time sitting on the side of the road, or later in the courtroom, that it was not mine and I had never seen it before??

Minor possession charge is a misdemeanor, not a felony..depending on the substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of the postings here are really far fetched. I don't get nervous when I have guns in the car and pass cops. AS far as I am concerned, if I was so worried about the what if, I would simply ask if I was being detained, take my ticket and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black helicopters have passed over my position so I can respond now.

 

Posted Yesterday, 10:49 PM

 

 

Anselmo, on 17 September 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

 

 

Is a prosecutor going to convince a jury that eating lunch was unreasonable and unnecessary? Are you going to go to prison because you ate lunch?

 

 

 

I don't know - want to find out for me?

 

These laws have been in effect in NJ for over 40 years and there is nothing I can find where a guy was convicted of eating lunch on the way home from the range. Please find me someone convicted of such.

 

Hmm careless driving while on a return trip from the range. You get nervous because you're stopped with guns in the car. Cop sees nervous and ask to search. You say hey I have guns. Cop searches finds hollow points. You had them during te commission of reckless driving. You pissed of the cop because he feels you jepardized his safety by not saying you had guns from step one. You winde up in cuffs, guns taken, amd enroute to the police station.

 

To me that is just a possible as dropping a loaded 30 whatever round mag on the beach

 

You are 100% wrong. It seems you got stopped for careless driving and somehow got charged with reckless driving by the end of the paragraph but that makes no difference in my final answer. Both are MV violations. They are not criminal violations. The hollowpoint law is used as an add on charge to a criminal violation. Possession to and from a range is okay unless you are charged with a crime.

 

There are other issues here you have here. Why are you nervous when you are stopped when you have guns in the car if you are not breaking any law? Do guns make you nervous? Do cops make you nervous? Why? There is a name for this and it is called paranoia.

 

Being as nervous as you are in your scenario it would seem that you told the cop early on you had guns. Why does the cop feel his safety is jeopardized when your guns are being transported as required by law? There is no law for Pissing Off a Cop although there are other statutes that may apply.

 

If I missed something please tell me what criminal law you were supposed to have violated. The cop can arrest you for any MV violation but the scenario you present is ridiculous.

 

Another great example.

 

Reminds me of the Brian Aitken case - he had bed sheets, dishes, silverware, and packed boxes in his car, but the judge did not allow this as evidence of him moving

 

Please enough of Brian Aitken! Read this thread and try and tell me he is a poster boy,

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22268-evan-nappen-and-brian-aitken-on-tv-sat-night/page__hl__aitken

 

Ever buy a used car?? What if you buy a used vehicle, and the previous owner was a drug user/buyer/seller/dealer?? What if that car was not thoroughly cleaned prior to you buying it?? What if you get stopped, and the ensuing officer claims he smells something funny, and opts to bring the dogs out to sniff around??

 

What I found was a certain amount of a controlled dangerous substance tucked(or possibly has fallen there from another spot) up under the edge of the rear cargo floor carpet underneath the jack stowage compartment. No idea it was there, but should the situation have arisen, I guarantee the dogs would have found it, and I would be looking at time for that, as well as possession of weapons during that crime. Do you honestly think they would believe me either at the time sitting on the side of the road, or later in the courtroom, that it was not mine and I had never seen it before??

 

Okay I'm not saying you didn't find something in your used car but I do have a few questions. What did you do to make the cop want to bring out the dogs? I guess you let him run the dog on the interior of your car to find it in the spare tire well? You guarantee the dogs would have found it? Why? I am very familiar working with what are the best drug detecting dogs around and I would like to hear your rationale for a "guaranteed find". How do you know it was CDS? Did you field test it? Did you sample it? How do you know it wasn't something else? Was it sufficient quantity and purity to have you charged with a felony?

 

I think you should read this regarding FOPA and Cabela's Carry Adventures:

 

http://forum.pafoa.o...ely-report.html

 

I would hadly call this "mounting evidence". It is an opinion of a person who states,

 

"nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice by either the source contributors or myself. The information is presented only for purposes of facilitating an individual’s assessing the probability of a favorable court interpretation of §926A in their particular circumstances. Obviously there is no way of guaranteeing how §926A will apply to a specific case being adjudicated (there is little on-point established case law) but a court may indeed use the same historical data and logic to reach the same conclusions as provided herein"

 

His entire argument focuses around FOPA and that's all. None of the responses he got are definitive for various reasons. I'll give the same disclaimer and tell you my opinion.

 

Both Heller and McDonald affirmed the right to own handguns for personal protection and allowed states to have reasonable restrictions. NJ law grants no exemption to transport a handgun to or from a store for sale or purchase and many other circumstances including transporting the gun to PA to carry on a FL permit.

 

If someone from NJ were arrested for transporting their handgun to PA to carry on their FL permit, the question for SCOTUS would be "Is it a reasonable restriction that NJ law forbids a NJ resident from transporting a handgun to another state for a legal purpose?". Based on Heller and McDonald the answer should be no. Having a law that says you can't transport a handgun out of state for a legal purpose is unreasonable. NJ cannot define what a legal purpose is in any other state.

 

My answer has no reference to FOPA at all.

 

Test case? You'll never see one. If anyone were arrested for transporting their handgun to another state for a legal purpose in NJ the prosecutor would definitely call the AG on it. No case law. The AG does not want the Feds telling NJ they are wrong and will most likely make NJ change their laws. The AG will tell the prosecutor to drop the case. Easier to leave it as it is.

 

This is "mounting evidence" to the contrary.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your a moron... Did you bother to read what the original post was about in this thread?

 

Good for you, relying on insults because of your own failed understanding of my post. I wonder where I got that link from.......Good thing you had a well thought out, justified response. I almost thought otherwise....oh, nevermind.

 

 

 

I think you should read this regarding FOPA and Cabela's Carry Adventures:

 

I again ask, where this mounting evidence is. Because what you posted is not evidence. Being arrested would be a start for evidence, but a statement that if someone were to have that happen, based on an interpretation of the law, that may or may not be correct, and would may or may not hold up in court or in appeal, is far from mounting evidence.

  • Like 1

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...