My friend is in Trouble in NJ

[VeritasAequitas]

No...........

Thanks. I didn't think so.

[sprrdhawk44]

Is it a crime in PA to not report a firearm stolen?

I thought Pittsburgh put something like this into effect a couple years back?

Edit: Yes they did.


Article Tools
EmailPrintHigh court won't review city gun-reporting law
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
By Rich Lord , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the National Rifle Association's request that it hear an appeal of Pittsburgh's ordinance concerning lost and stolen guns.

The court's decision, reached by consensus and reflected in a one-line order, appears to end the legal wrangling over the ordinance, passed in 2008. The ordinance requires that residents report the loss or theft of a gun within 24 hours of discovering it is missing. Violators face a $500 to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment.

The ordinance was designed to deter people from buying guns, selling them to felons who are not allowed to possess them, and then later, when the gun is recovered by law enforcement, claiming it was lost or stolen. It has been copied by about 40 other municipalities statewide, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which defended the ordinance pro bono for the city.

"The ordinance isn't aimed at law-abiding gun owners. It's aimed at criminals," he said.

"This is the first time [such an ordinance] has survived on its own through every level of the state court system."

Mr. Vice said it is conceivable that the NRA could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or try again to defeat the ordinance if it is enforced against one of the organization's members.

The NRA could not be immediately reached.

Rich Lord: rlord@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542


First published on June 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11166...#ixzz1ZEGwtHmY

[son of the revolution]

I thought Pittsburgh put something like this into effect a couple years back?

Edit: Yes they did.


Article Tools
EmailPrintHigh court won't review city gun-reporting law
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
By Rich Lord , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the National Rifle Association's request that it hear an appeal of Pittsburgh's ordinance concerning lost and stolen guns.

The court's decision, reached by consensus and reflected in a one-line order, appears to end the legal wrangling over the ordinance, passed in 2008. The ordinance requires that residents report the loss or theft of a gun within 24 hours of discovering it is missing. Violators face a $500 to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment.

The ordinance was designed to deter people from buying guns, selling them to felons who are not allowed to possess them, and then later, when the gun is recovered by law enforcement, claiming it was lost or stolen. It has been copied by about 40 other municipalities statewide, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which defended the ordinance pro bono for the city.

"The ordinance isn't aimed at law-abiding gun owners. It's aimed at criminals," he said.

"This is the first time [such an ordinance] has survived on its own through every level of the state court system."

Mr. Vice said it is conceivable that the NRA could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or try again to defeat the ordinance if it is enforced against one of the organization's members.

The NRA could not be immediately reached.

Rich Lord: rlord@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542


First published on June 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11166...#ixzz1ZEGwtHmY

And its also an Illegal Ordinance that violates the PAUFA and as such is unenforceable

[tl_3237]

Probably depends on how the law is written. I've read several times on this board NJ considers each HP a seperate offense but I've never actually read the particular law. I'd say we'd have to dig that up somewhere to get an answer.

Unfortunately much disinformation is on PAFOA as it is on many other forums.

Here's the actual law:

NJS 2C:39-3 Prohibited Weapons and Devices.

f. Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or (2) any person, other than a collector of firearms or ammunition as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) and has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who knowingly has in his possession any body armor breaching or penetrating ammunition, which means: (a) ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun, and (b) which is comprised of a bullet whose core or jacket, if the jacket is thicker than.025 of an inch, is made of tungsten carbide, or hard bronze, or other material which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale, and (c) is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. For purposes of this section, a collector may possess not more than three examples of each distinctive variation of the ammunition described above. A distinctive variation includes a different head stamp, composition, design, or color.

Many laws specify when a 'separate offense' is presumed if its not on a per occasion basis.

In NJS there are 74 occurrences of "separate offense". For example here's one that not only specifies that separate occasions = separate violations but also that a continuum of the same occasion spanning multiple days = multiple violations:

5:12-123. Continuing Offenses. a. A violation of any of the provisions of this act which is an offense of a continuing nature shall be deemed to be a separate offense on each day during which it occurs. Nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude the commission of multiple violations within a day of those provisions of this act which establish offenses consisting of separate and distinct acts.

Another relative to separate offense for each item:

2C:40-15. Violations; petty disorderly persons offense Any person who sells, offers for sale or uses any portable kerosene-burning heating device in violation of the provisions of this act is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense. Each sale of a heater in violation of this act constitutes a separate offense.

Failing to specify that each HP illegally possessed is a separate offense then necessarily a violation is a single offense for each discrete occasion as opposed to each item. No such phraseology exists in the HP proscription.

[Siguser]

I posted a question a few weeks ago about hollow points in PA. It looks like according to this article it IS illegal to own/use hollow points. Did I misread this law?

[Siguser]

Disregard - you're talking about NJ. Sorry for the misunderstanding

[sprrdhawk44]

And its also an Illegal Ordinance that violates the PAUFA and as such is unenforceable

Considering that the PA Supreme Court refused to entertain a hearing regarding the illegality of it, I'd say it's enforceable. I'm not saying it's right, as it is complete and total BS, but unless you have the resources to fight something that the PA SC won't even reconsider, I wouldn't disregard it.

[son of the revolution]

Considering that the PA Supreme Court refused to entertain a hearing regarding the illegality of it, I'd say it's enforceable. I'm not saying it's right, as it is complete and total BS, but unless you have the resources to fight something that the PA SC won't even reconsider, I wouldn't disregard it.

Correction, they said The NRA didnt have standing to challenge it, they NEVER said that no one could. Splitting legal hairs here. Is it technically enforceable ? Yes. Will they enforce it ? NO. Its a dichotomy. They wont, and to my knowledge have yet to charge a single person under the ordinance because its obvious it violates the UFA and if they were ever to pursue it , the defendant would prevail at some point in the process and it would set precedent. Something the Anti Gunners are always desperate to avoid unless its favorable to them. Not to mention the civil suit that would be sure to follow from any defendant charged under a clearly illegal ordinance.

[tacticalreload]

Correction, they said The NRA didnt have standing to challenge it, they NEVER said that no one could. Splitting legal hairs here. Is it technically enforceable ? Yes. Will they enforce it ? NO. Its a dichotomy. They wont, and to my knowledge have yet to charge a single person under the ordinance because its obvious it violates the UFA and if they were ever to pursue it , the defendant would prevail at some point in the process and it would set precedent. Something the Anti Gunners are always desperate to avoid unless its favorable to them. Not to mention the civil suit that would be sure to follow from any defendant charged under a clearly illegal ordinance.

Sadly, it's hard to guess what the gov't. will or will not pursue... not matter how crazy it seems to us. Just ask Viper.

[bigdawgbeav]

So where are we with the original premise for the thread? Are there any updates?