Reason #7,452 to Stay out of NJ – TX Man Transporting Unloaded Firearms Through NJ Doing 3-5 Years in Prison

[Guest TankerHC]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/reason-number-7452-to-stay-out-of-nj-tx-man-transporting-unloaded-firearms-through-nj-doing-3-5-years-in-prison/

 

[RobertNashville]

This yet again raises the question of how these states get away with completely ignoring federal law (much less the U.S. Constitution).

 

I don't understand it...I'm not sure I want to.

[Links2k]

That sucks to hear.  I have to visit Princeton in July, and that's after a trip to Ithaca, NY next month.  I'm not looking forward to being unarmed on either trip.

[TripleDigitRide]

According to THIS ARTICLE, he denied having any guns. When he finally did admit to being in possession of firearms, he said they were not loaded. Some of the guns were loaded. He didn't come back to attend the trial. He was arrested in Maine in 2008 and charged with threatening his first wife with a gun.

 

None of this takes away from the fact that NJ should be cast into the ocean, but this guy is a moron.

[LCPfraTN]

The northeast is beautiful, but the libtards up there are such dumbasses. Even if the details of the guys story are a little odd, he still doesn't deserve jail time for his stupidity. I have friends and relatives in the northeast, and I dread visiting them anymore.  

[RobertNashville]

 Agreed, five years just for possessing the firearms (assuming he was not otherwise restricted from owning them) is awfully steep although it looks as if he bears a good bit of the responsibility for what happened!

[Oh Shoot]

 Agreed, five years just for possessing the firearms (assuming he was not otherwise restricted from owning them) is awfully steep although it looks as if he bears a good bit of the responsibility for what happened!

 

Yep. "Safe Passage" part of FOPA is pretty specific and certainly offers no protection for a loaded firearm.

 

- OS

[Luke E.]

According to THIS ARTICLE, he denied having any guns. When he finally did admit to being in possession of firearms, he said they were not loaded. Some of the guns were loaded. He didn't come back to attend the trial. He was arrested in Maine in 2008 and charged with threatening his first wife with a gun.

 

None of this takes away from the fact that NJ should be cast into the ocean, but this guy is a moron.

 We all know how these little details get "accidentally" misconstrued. Being that everything i've found on the matter has ranged from one extreme to the other and everywhere in between, theres no telling what really happened. I've seen first hand how an "officer of the law" can go from normal every day traffic stop mode to rabid drooling gonna get me one mode in short order when he see's the chance, i can't get settled on the idea that they are being truthful. On that same note, who hasn't seen someone in the wrong go hire a big shot attorney and twist knots in the police's story. Hard to say without being there i suppose but NJ over steps Constitutional boundaries daily and in my opinion never deserve the courtesy of "benefit of the doubt.

 

 But i am troubled by one thing in the article, His lawyer is fighting saying that state law should never trump federal law and i beg to differ. When the feds are over stepping their Constitutional boundaries (seems to be happening more and more over the last 5yrs) then i believe the states have a right you make their stand! In this case the feds are within those boundaries and the state seeks to deprive the rest of us our god given right. I was a fan of how Christie stepped in and brought NJ out of the toilet but since then he has proved to be a (pun intended)"BIG" disappointment.

 

Rant is concluded. 

[RobertNashville]

 ... But i am troubled by one thing in the article, His lawyer is fighting saying that state law should never trump federal law and i beg to differ. When the feds are over stepping their Constitutional boundaries (seems to be happening more and more over the last 5yrs) then i believe the states have a right you make their stand! In this case the feds are within those boundaries and the state seeks to deprive the rest of us our god given right. I was a fan of how Christie stepped in and brought NJ out of the toilet but since then he has proved to be a (pun intended)"BIG" disappointment.

State vs Federal is always going to be a balancing act....transporting firearms (or anything else for that matter) across state lines seems to me to be an appropriate use of federal power to ensure that everyone is treated fairly although, of course, you always run the risk of really bad federal law.

 

While I don't "like" the firearm laws in many states, if the people of that state have chosen to dictate how/when/if a firearm can be carried in public I think they have a right to do that...it's up to the residents of those states to change their own laws if the laws are unfair or violate the 2A.  But, no state should be able to bar the possession of arms at all or have such draconian laws that people effectively can't have them and I'm ever more convinced that state law should not trump federal law when it comes to transporting across state lines/through those states.

[Luke E.]

State vs Federal is always going to be a balancing act....transporting firearms (or anything else for that matter) across state lines seems to me to be an appropriate use of federal power to ensure that everyone is treated fairly although, of course, you always run the risk of really bad federal law.

 

While I don't "like" the firearm laws in many states, if the people of that state have chosen to dictate how/when/if a firearm can be carried in public I think they have a right to do that...it's up to the residents of those states to change their own laws if the laws are unfair or violate the 2A.  But, no state should be able to bar the possession of arms at all or have such draconian laws that people effectively can't have them and I'm ever more convinced that state law should not trump federal law when it comes to transporting across state lines/through those states.

I agree with you on all fronts other than the states having the right to have their own gun possession laws. I believe we have the birth right to protect ourselves and possess the tools necessary to do so. I don't believe the state or federal government has the right, no matter how many vote for it, to deny the residents that might choose to arm their selves that right. The 2nd Amendment is cut and dry perfectly clear in it's meaning and that should trump ANYTHING that the state or federal government decide to vomit upon the american people. In my mind a state forcing gun owners to have a registration card is unconstitutional, I mean 2A does state that the right "shall not be infringed" and if i have to go register then my rights are being infringed upon! We've been letting them "infringe" little by little for a very long time and if it is not stopped then there will be no stopping it. We're getting to the point in the process that if we don't not only stop it but rather stop it and take back what they have already tricked us out of, we will never get it back..

[RobertNashville]

I agree with you on all fronts other than the states having the right to have their own gun possession laws. I believe we have the birth right to protect ourselves and possess the tools necessary to do so. I don't believe the state or federal government has the right, no matter how many vote for it, to deny the residents that might choose to arm their selves that right. The 2nd Amendment is cut and dry perfectly clear in it's meaning and that should trump ANYTHING that the state or federal government decide to vomit upon the american people. In my mind a state forcing gun owners to have a registration card is unconstitutional, I mean 2A does state that the right "shall not be infringed" and if i have to go register then my rights are being infringed upon! We've been letting them "infringe" little by little for a very long time and if it is not stopped then there will be no stopping it. We're getting to the point in the process that if we don't not only stop it but rather stop it and take back what they have already tricked us out of, we will never get it back..

As a theoretical issue I fully agree with you...as a practical matter, the people of a state can pretty much vote/pass for any law they want.

 

The only protection against unconstitutional laws is for someone with standing to sue and get a high enough court to agree with the plaintiff...I guess that's one of the reasons I have some trouble feeling sympathy for folks who live in states like NY or IL or NJ...while I know there are good, decent, Constitution-loving people in those states; the laws they have to live under are pretty much what they (as a whole) have voted for.

 

There comes a time when each person has to decide if they'll put up with the status quo, do something about it, or perhaps move to a state that still has some (or at least more) respect for individual rights/liberty. That's one of the reasons why, over 16 years ago, I decided to move to Tennessee with no job and knowing virtually no one who lived here!

Edited May 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Luke E.]

As a theoretical issue I fully agree with you...as a practical matter, the people of a state can pretty much vote/pass for any law they want.

The only protection against unconstitutional laws is for someone with standing to sue and get a high enough court to agree with the plaintiff...I guess that's one of the reasons I have some trouble feeling sympathy for folks who live in states like NY or IL or NJ...while I know there are good, decent, Constitution-loving people in those states; the laws they have to live under are pretty much what they (as a whole) have voted for.

There comes a time when each person has to decide if they'll put up with the status quo, do something about it, or perhaps move to a state that still has some (or at least more) respect for individual rights/liberty. That's one of the reasons why, over 16 years ago, I decided to move to Tennessee with no job and knowing virtually no one who lived here!

I have a hard time being okay with some voting away birth rights of others. I fully understand how it all comes about and when it pertains to non constitutionally protected issues I think that is the way for things to be decided. Lets say there are more democrats that support the IRS's singling out conservative and tea party groups than there are others that oppose it. If they vote that this is an acceptable behavior because they have a larger number or simply have more people in the right places does that make it okay? My point is, I see a huge difference between legislation that destroys birth rights and legislation that decides if you will be taxed on income or taxed on consumption etc...,

[Dustbuster]

New Jersey just sucks period...for a state thats full of "tough guys",gay governors and more, the citizens keep getting flattened by the political steamroller toll roads hi taxes and more pitiful... 

[Oh Shoot]

..and I'm ever more convinced that state law should not trump federal law when it comes to transporting across state lines/through those states.

 

If indeed any of those firearms were

 

- loaded

- not stored in separate compartment of vehicle or if not applicable,

- guns or ammo not in locked container

 

then they didn't trump the "safe passage" part of FOPA.  Understand that when you travel through enemy territory.

 

Much more troubling are those incidents where airline passengers with checked firearms have been diverted and arrested when they claimed their luggage. I don't know what the current ruling is on that, or if it has been sussed out at all so that passengers aren't culpable under state laws for behavior that was beyond their control.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

If indeed any of those firearms were

 

- loaded

- not stored in separate compartment of vehicle or if not applicable,

- guns or ammo not in locked container

 

then they didn't trump the "safe passage" part of FOPA.  Understand that when you travel through enemy territory.

 

Much more troubling are those incidents where airline passengers with checked firearms have been diverted and arrested when they claimed their luggage. I don't know what the current ruling is on that, or if it has been sussed out at all so that passengers aren't culpable under state laws for behavior that was beyond their control.

 

- OS

I absolutely agree...you have to follow the law FOPA before it can be relied on; it's jut too bad that in some socialist states like NY and NJ they just ignore it.

 

I too am especially bothered by the problem that can arise when flying and traveling with a firearm and, for example, your plane gets diverted to NYC or some equally draconian place...that's one of the reasons I avoid flying commercial whenever possible.

Edited May 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Luke E.]

I absolutely agree...you have to follow the law FOPA before it can be relied on; it's jut too bad that in some socialist states like NY and NJ they just ignore it.

I too am especially bothered by the problem that can arise when flying and traveling with a firearm and, for example, your plane gets diverted to NYC or some equally draconian place...that's one of the reasons I avoid flying commercial whenever possible.

I can't imagine being in route to a caribou hunt in Canada and being forced to land in NYC due to weather or the such. That is a situation that no one should ever have to face.
Just another example of a law abiding citizen being turned into a criminal by a sometimes criminal law.

[Luke E.]

If indeed any of those firearms were

- loaded
- not stored in separate compartment of vehicle or if not applicable,
- guns or ammo not in locked container

then they didn't trump the "safe passage" part of FOPA. Understand that when you travel through enemy territory.

Much more troubling are those incidents where airline passengers with checked firearms have been diverted and arrested when they claimed their luggage. I don't know what the current ruling is on that, or if it has been sussed out at all so that passengers aren't culpable under state laws for behavior that was beyond their control.

- OS

I don't disagree that in order to be in compliance one must comply but I disagree with the idea that anyone or any government has the right to pass legislation that infringes on law abiding citizens rights for them to even have to comply with. I guess that's my whole point. If they want to make up personal rules for themselves and any that will follow suit that is fine but don't drag me into your madness and beat me out of my rights.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

We're talking about a state where its illegal to pump your own gas and gas station attendant's have a union. Was there ever any suspicion of intelligent life there?

[Guest carter]

ya there's a lot more to this story than just transporting firearms... the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 would of kept him out of trouble if the firearms where not loaded... 

[Guest TankerHC]

follow up.
 

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/23/man-arrested-in-nj-while-moving-from-me-to-tx-was-doing-more-than-just-transporting-guns/

[Rightdefender]

I moved to Tennessee from New Jersey 15 years ago I've been back for times and each time I have my pistol in the car I don't care what their laws are I'm not going un armed through that state.