TexasCHLforum.com

ryanj wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Uh-huh. And conservative prosecutors are so much more fair, right, Ken Anderson.....

At least give 'em some personal culpability here.

Many prosecutors are scoundrels, but the flavor of injustice they serve up is a product of their particular ideological biases and whatever is opportunistic. Hence, the ones on the right like caging people for years when for things like consuming plant life the government doesn't like, and the ones on the left like to cage people for transgressing their ideological orthodoxies, e.g. owning guns and defending themselves. Both are authoritarians just expressing different aspects of authoritarianism.

Agreed. And the corruption in NJ stinks to high heaven. I actually live in this state and have had to deal with the bull to an extreme at times. Just pray you never have to deal with the division of taxation, DCF (child protective services) or the criminal justice system. You will lose your marbles, quickly. Only thing keeping me here is that my wife has a metric ton in retirement and other benefits to lose if she quits her job for us to move to another state far away. Maybe we can move to PA.

cb1000rider wrote:Uh-huh. And conservative prosecutors are so much more fair, right, Ken Anderson.....

At least give 'em some personal culpability here.

philip964 wrote:http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/new-jer ... le/2553028

ryanj wrote:Also anybody considering voting for Chris Christie for President in 2016 needs a serious reality check... this guy is a serious gunophobe. He only panders from time to time when it is politically convenient.

gljjt wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:Her only hope for avoiding prison time is jury nullification. Unfortunately, that depends on her landing a pro gun jury AND at least one juror knowing about nullification.

Apparently there is discretion in a "diversionary" program for first time offenders that results in no conviction after a probationary period, but the prosecuting attorney declined, so far, to allow this young woman into the program.

If this young single mother is taken away from her children, placed in prison at a cost of tens of thousands of NJ taxpayer money, then I, in my opinion, say the prosecutor is the real criminal. I couldn't sleep at night if I was to act so callously.

Purplehood wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Is there even the remotest possibility that this is, or could be made to be, a test case?

A test case of what? NJ has already had some fairly high profile prosecutions of people who were otherwise law-abiding and just happened to do things wrong in NJ. Here's a good reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... s?page=120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no legal expert, but what would help here is some sort of national "right to travel" indication that the states can't infringe on. That is, if you're carrying unloaded firearms that aren't easily accessible, the states can't necessarily restrict that. One could claim that clearly this is granted under our 2nd amendment, but apparently that isn't the case.

There is already a Federal Law that allow you to travel between states with weapons unloaded and locked in a gun case. States like New Jersey just ignore it. And you're not going to see any DOJ intervention under our criminal AG.

You sure about that Federal Law? I have a friend that was charged with having an unloaded weapon in his hotel room in Massachusetts. He had to hire an expensive lawyer and still ended up having to cut a deal with the judge.
His weapon was unloaded, cased and put in the room safe...when he left, he forgot it.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: There is already a Federal Law that allow you to travel between states with weapons unloaded and locked in a gun case. States like New Jersey just ignore it. And you're not going to see any DOJ intervention under our criminal AG.

I was unaware... It would have saved me the hour I spent trying to figure out what constitutes a "gun case" in Illinois.
Here's the reference: Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA

Details:

Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.

And a Footnote:

Travelers should be aware that some state and local governments treat this federal provision as an “affirmative defense” that may only be raised after an arrest.

NJ Footnote:

NEW JERSEY—New Jersey has highly restrictive firearms laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that anyone traveling within the state is deemed to be aware of these regulations and will be held strictly accountable for violations. Revell v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 10-236

I assume this means that I *should* be OK as long as firearms are in locked storage that is not accessible from inside a vehicle. I also get to recognize that I can still get arrested in NJ or Illinois, if I violated state/local ordinances or am caught with the wrong "type" of weapon/ammunition.

Again, all this does is encourage me to not tell the truth if stopped in a state like that... Nothing good can come of it.

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Is there even the remotest possibility that this is, or could be made to be, a test case?

A test case of what? NJ has already had some fairly high profile prosecutions of people who were otherwise law-abiding and just happened to do things wrong in NJ. Here's a good reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... s?page=120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no legal expert, but what would help here is some sort of national "right to travel" indication that the states can't infringe on. That is, if you're carrying unloaded firearms that aren't easily accessible, the states can't necessarily restrict that. One could claim that clearly this is granted under our 2nd amendment, but apparently that isn't the case.

gljjt wrote:Average cost to the state of New Jersey to incarcerate a prisoner: $28,000.

http://nicic.gov/statestats/?st=NJ

Is it really worth $84,000 of the taxpayers money to lock this woman up for a mistake that hurt no one and really shouldn't even be a crime? These people are idiots.

cb1000rider wrote:

jmra wrote: Ultimately, just or not, as individuals we have a responsibility to educate ourselves regarding the rules and regulations related to activities in which we choose to participate. The town I work in has an ordinance on the books that states you can't make a u-turn. There aren't any signs saying you can't make a u-turn, but that argument will get you nowhere when you get pulled over because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sucks for out of towners but that's the way it is. Fortunately that's just a ticket and not 3 yrs in jail. Back to this case, if you have any active brain cells whatsoever you have to know that you are subject to the laws of the state you are traveling in. If you don't do your homework you fail. In this case failure comes with a hefty price.

I'm with you on the personal responsibility. However, we (on this forum) spend tons of time talking about the laws of our state just to get clarity on them. We live in a big ole' state where it can take 8 hours to cross the boundaries. Up there in the NE, you can cross several boundaries in an hour... Expecting people to know the intricacies of each state's law is burdensome and isn't a realistic expectation.

We all know that ignorance is no excuse. However, in this case, as a tax payer, I'd expect some "selective" prosecution if such is allowed by law. Locking good people up because they made a simple, albeit ignorant, mistake doesn't do anyone any good.

I'm traveling by RV to Michigan this year. I looked up the reciprocity maps and know I'm OK in the vehicle all the way up to Illinois. However, in Illinois, I know that I'm "not OK" and probably spent about an hour just trying to understand what how I can legally transport weapons "outside" of my vehicle. In particular, the legal definition of "case", which all firearms must be in.. I'm not going to bother looking up what types of signs have the force of law in all those states, I'm just going to avoid the issue by abiding by all signs. But lets say that I was stopped in Illinois and was asked if the vehicle had any weapons (anywhere)? Sure seems like the smart answer would be "no". Zero penalty of lying, big penalty if you're doing it wrong.