Another gets railroaded by NJ gun laws

[whoshisface]

Lets keep in mind the criminals rap sheet we're dealing with here.

So loaded in nj often means a magazine and not a gun!

Clearly visible means "once i opened the trunk" and opened the locked case.

It might have gone down just as the officer says, it might be a completly different reality.

Bank parking lot might be near an atm..

I highly doubt he had two guns laying down open on a back seat. I mean hes from texas but i dont think they drive around with guns just laying down on the back seat exposed to the world. This guy might of but right away red flags go off. Any case that isnt transperant prevents one from knowing whats inside it no matter what the stickers or shape of the case is. I guarantee it unless its a liquid coming out of the case you cannot tell whats in it. Is this guys trunk fuctional? I dont know. If not you can have it in the back seat. Were they locked? If that is so where is the ras to search the glove compartment if in fact the firearm was in side it?

Fyi you can stop within the state so long as your only stopping for necessity. Nj has a law against driving while tired or after x number of hours without sleep. If he stopped to sle eo to comply with that law and was otherwise following the federal law i propose he'd be fine under the intentions of the fed law. I propose that under the fed law you can stop for coffee food and gas and lodging if needed to complete your travel.


I agree though, when i transport under the fed law i dont usually stop, but if i get a flat or i absolutely had to stop because i was sleepy, i would. Sleeping in a parking lot so you do not run off the road is not really stopping any more than stopping at a red light is. It is a necessity to complete your travel safetly and well within reason.

When i look at testimony from known entities i take their criminal rap.sheet into consideration

[dc dalton]

While I agree he shouldn't even have stopped in NJ I have to question the story. How often do we see newspapers make crap up as they go.

[press1280]

The guy is claiming everything was in locked cases, nothing was exposed, and the cop mistook a duffel bag as one that is used for firearms. He points to the (I assume) dashcam video, as well as the officer testifying twice that he knew guns were in the car because of the Texas plates.

[HiredGoon]

The guy was railroaded by his own stupidity.

<SNIP>
4. Loaded handgun in car.

He wasn't legally transporting under FOPA. If you're going to be traveling with that many firearms, you better be damn sure of all the laws you need to abide by to do so.

Yeah, I doubt he'll get much sympathy (donations) from gun owners, IF he had a loaded handgun in his car while in NJ. He should have known better

[customloaded]

The article states the man is a former Military Member, LEO,and owner of a Security company. Every person I know with qualifications such as this man, KNOWS not to ever go into NJ, PERIOD! And sure as hell knows not to stop there if one has to go into NJ, EVER, especially if he has guns. I'm not saying being stupid is criminal but FUCK, go further WEST and stay in NY and then PA.

Was the search legal? Hell no. Even if the officer saw a gun CASE in plain view, that doesn't amount to Probable cause to search a vehicle. What is a gun case? A locked Container that has what in it? Cooking utensils? A guitar? What? What the officer saw a locked container that might have been used for storing firearms. One would only know the contents when its opened and it appears that consent was never given.

Plainview doctrine applies if contraband or illegal items are seen from a normal persons view. Viewing a "Case" is not sufficient to amount to Probable cause to believe a crime was committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. Its just a case but from the website, what the officer saw as a "Duffle Bag." Nothing illegal with that container either.

This whole case stinks!

CL

[dwalk]

If he's a LEO (even if retired), can't he carry under that LEOSA (or what ever it's called) there by negating this anyway?

[HiredGoon]

If he's a LEO (even if retired), can't he carry under that LEOSA (or what ever it's called) there by negating this anyway?

I don't think it said he was retired... just a former LEO. Big difference.
I believe there is a certain number of years required on the job under LEOSA to be considered "retired".

[9orangeletters]

I find it disgusting and outright remarkable that we have to navigate such convoluted laws to do something as simple as DRIVING YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY AROUND. It's absurd that there's so much grey area and so much "ya gotta do it this way here, but that way over there and both ways are illegal in NJ."

It's even more absurd that we're talking about this like "he should have known better" instead of "NJ needs to knock off their douchebaggery".

How do we go about giving it back to the British? I mean, seriously, they can have it.

[TerminusEst]

Can't remember off the top of my head exactly what Texas' laws are regarding concealing/carrying firearms are, but this here is EXACTLY why we need that national reciprocity law passed.

Assuming he was doing something that was quite legal in Texas, there's no way he should be charged with a crime just because he made of the mistake of being in New Jersey (which actually is practically a crime in itself...)

[tes151]

Get bail, return to Texas, and never go back to NJ. ( Yeah, like that will work ) He's screwed!