JSThane wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:Way off the mark here. First, I suspect you are thinking of FOPA (federal), not MPA (Texas). However, neither FOPA or MPA apply. This was purely an internal NJ screwup under a screwed up NJ set of laws.JSThane wrote:If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.![]()
Much as I wish otherwise, I am often wrong, and frequently on the internet. Thank you. That being said, I -thought- there was something similar that applied, and IIRC, yes, it was something that should have been covered under state law, not federal, my mistake. IE, NJ law had a specific exemption for people in-transit or traveling, if the firearms were unloaded and in a locked container; they decided that didn't apply for some reason, and charged him anyway, despite it being a textbook case of an exemption as the law was written.
They problem was it didn't "fit" the law. There is an exemption for moving. In theory the defendant felt like he was moving from I believe his mothers house to his own place but this was an ongoing thing over many days thus no longer fitting the true intent of the law. There was also testimony given that the guns had already been moved and that they were removed from the house and put back in the car so they wouldn't be in the house for a party that was being thrown. Now I think the law is absurd and it makes me never want to get close to NJ but what was this guy thinking? This is NJ. It may be wrong but you got to know what you are getting into or you are to stupid to safely own firearms.