TexasCHLforum.com

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.

So the lesson here is never, ever, travel to MA, NJ, NY, MD, IL, CO, CA, CT.

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

Very remote but it's there. Right now it's in the preliminary stages. If she loses it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Right now though, the prosecutor is pushing for this to get to trial.

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.

That's not really true. NJ does in fact recognize FOPA, which is the law you're talking about. The state police gives guidelines on their website:

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_trans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However they need to be unloaded, locked up and ammo separate. If they're loaded, and they catch you, you're toast.

Also the 3rd circuit (federal court) recently ruled that once you get out of your car and walk with your firearm into an airport terminal you are not protected. This was the Revell case. So if you're just driving through, you're fine. If you stop for any reason and are caught, your new residence will be Rahway state prison.

gljjt wrote:So the lesson here is never, ever, travel to MA, NJ, NY, MD, IL, CO, CA, CT.

CO has reciprocity with TX for residents, but limits you to 15 rounds. CT is restrictive but it isn't too bad. You can get a permit from them (by mail). However, you do need to keep in mind they limit you to 10 rounds. I have 10 round magazines for my guns for when I travel there.

It's also actually OK to travel to CA, as long as the gun is in your hotel room (or wherever you're staying) or locked up and unloaded in your car. But you also need to make sure the magazine(s) can't hold more than 10 rounds. IL may actually be OK now, if you keep the gun in your car.

Purplehood wrote: 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.

The law says that you can pass through a state with the firearm locked up and unloaded in your car trunk. If you take it into your hotel room you are in violation. MA requires a LTC to possess any pistol.

gljjt wrote:So the lesson here is never, ever, travel to MA, NJ, NY, MD, IL, CO, CA, CT.

If my/our duly licensed Texas CHL's are not welcome, we ain't welcome.

Oldgringo wrote:

gljjt wrote:So the lesson here is never, ever, travel to MA, NJ, NY, MD, IL, CO, CA, CT.

If my/our duly licensed Texas CHL's are not welcome, we ain't welcome.

If my CHL is not welcome, I'm not going. Even my CHL is welcome, but there are magazine restrictions, so called 'assault weapons' ban - philosophical differences prohibit me from going there.

Well I guess there's that.

Oldgringo wrote:

gljjt wrote:So the lesson here is never, ever, travel to MA, NJ, NY, MD, IL, CO, CA, CT.

If my/our duly licensed Texas CHL's are not welcome, we ain't welcome.

You can take Colorado off that list. Your CHL is welcome there... Hopefully they'll recall some more bad politicians and restore the law to what it was.

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.

In that case, you could argue, and the DA probably did, that when he forgot the gun in the safe (I'm assuming he checked out of the hotel) it ceased to be under his control because hotel staff then had access to the safe. If that's what happened, and say, the maid found it, constructively, it wouldn't be that much different than if he'd left it on the night stand. I think Taxachussetts has a law that weapons, even in your own home, must be secured in a safe, under your control.

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.

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.

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.

I think the evidence is already in and we know that he's the real criminal.

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.

Trust me, they are ALL criminals and a major part of why NJ is closer to a NO issue state rather than a "mommy may I" issue one.

They don't call it the Soprano state for nothing!!!