TexasCHLforum.com

Ridiculous :(

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4110.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Motorists driving through New Jersey can be subjected to a warrantless search if their luggage is similar in appearance to a gun case, an appellate court ruled last week. The Superior Court's Appellate Division upheld a five year prison sentence against Dustin S. Reininger, a former police officer who was in the process of moving from Maine to Texas when a Readington Township police officer recognized the cases in the back of Reininger's vehicle as the sort that usually carries a rifle.

dihappy wrote:Ridiculous :(

That he received five years in prison for doing what is protected under the constitution or that the search of his car was justified?

If the rifle case was visible through a window, I feel the search was justified. However the rest, well you know.

philip964 wrote:That he received five years in prison for doing what is protected under the constitution or that the search of his car was justified?

Yes to both.

philip964 wrote:If the rifle case was visible through a window, I feel the search was justified. However the rest, well you know.

Why? A rifle case is not, nor should ever be, probable cause for search. Especially since his vehicle had TX plates (according to the article). The most reasonable assumption would have been a traveling exemption. If the officers felt a search was justified, then they should have waited on a warrant as there was little to no chance of evidence disappearing.

Hold on a minute.

Now I am just as disgusted with NJ laws as the next man, and have a strong affinity to the phrase "shall not be infringed".

But there is also the reality that if someone doesn't want to face arrests, attorney fees, trials and prison, it makes good sense to be aware of the laws actually being enforced and be smart about things.

Yes, he was engaged in interstate travel and had the benefit of FOPA "Safe Passage" provisions available to him.

However, FOPA requires the firearms to be in a trunk or compartment not immediately accessible from the vehicle, or, if you are in a vehicle like a station wagon or SUV that does not have a trunk, they must be in a locked case.

I understand from related articles that I read from other forums that he had the zippered nylon cases that I am sure all of us have used at one time or another, and the cases were not locked.

Something similar in principle to:



There is a "plain sight" exception to needing a search warrant. If the cases had been locked, as required by federal law, I believe we would be looking at a different outcome.

This was one part that puzzled me:

A jury acquitted him of the charges for possession of the "assault firearms" and handgun possession but convicted him in absentia of illegal possession of hollow-point bullets, shotguns, rifles and a high-capacity magazine. He was apprehended in Texas and extradited to New Jersey.

Seriously? How is someone not present for a felony trial?

Jumping Frog wrote:
This was one part that puzzled me:

A jury acquitted him of the charges for possession of the "assault firearms" and handgun possession but convicted him in absentia of illegal possession of hollow-point bullets, shotguns, rifles and a high-capacity magazine. He was apprehended in Texas and extradited to New Jersey.

Seriously? How is someone not present for a felony trial?

Yes.. this was very puzzling and such a curious fact was completely glossed over in the article..

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1833-11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Appears he was free on bond/bail and left the state...

During a pretrial conference on April 16, 2010 , the court informed defendant of his right to be present at trial and that the trial was scheduled for August 9, 2010. The court also informed defendant that if he failed to appear , the trial could proceed in his absence. Defendant stated that he understood . Nevertheless, defendant failed to appear for his trial , which began on August 9, 2010, and his attorney could not explain his absence.

Carrying a handgun loaded with hollow points directly behind the drivers seat while traveling through NJ gets you 3-5 years.
As a former LEO and a guy in the gun & security business, he HAD to know he was rolling the dice when he did that.

I don't like NJ law, but I'm smart enough not to take that risk. If the handgun was in a locked case, and there was no rifle/shotgun ammo in the car, I'm betting the outcome would not have been so severe. Carrying a loaded, accessible handgun in NJ is not covered by FOPA. That action got him prison time, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

For those who are at all familiar with NJ, there is no mistaking their history of persecution (and I use that word on purpose) of "outsiders" regarding their gun laws. It appalls me that gun crimes in places like Newark and Camden, cesspools of crimes and drugs, often go unpunished but that every single chance that the police and prosecutors get to jump on a citizen from another location is taken. The same goes for NY. Hollow point ammo is the worst possible mistake that you can make in NJ.

We lived in NJ and still have friends there but we never go back. I would like to visit other places in New England but it is almost impossible to get there from here without going through NJ or NY. Those trips are not going to happen either.

We drive from TX to PA. The shortest route to our destination in PA includes about 12 miles in MD. Every other State we pass through except MD honors the TX CHL. But MD is another place where I believe that I am flirting with a jail sentence even if I strictly adhere to FOPA. It is simply the world that we live in.

Let NJ try to extradite him. I'd love to see them try.

They already did I think...

I think everybody is missing the point. This guy was a former LEO, passing through the State, and no threat to anyone in New Jersey. That means HE, and other people like him, are the targets of these gun laws. When's the last time you read about a thug in Newark apprehended with a gun in his waistband getting five years in the slammer? I suspect the thug gets 6 months, perhaps probation, or not even charged. This incident is an illustration of who these laws are really targeting AND the complicity of law enforcement in shredding the Constitution.

VMI77 wrote:I think everybody is missing the point. This guy was a former LEO, passing through the State, and no threat to anyone in New Jersey. That means HE, and other people like him, are the targets of these gun laws. When's the last time you read about a thug in Newark apprehended with a gun in his waistband getting five years in the slammer? I suspect the thug gets 6 months, perhaps probation, or not even charged. This incident is an illustration of who these laws are really targeting AND the complicity of law enforcement in shredding the Constitution.

Exactly.

There is not a job that pays enough money to get me to move to New Jersey, or any other liberal-progressive dominated state. This sort of stuff is one of, though not the only, reason I left California. And Chris Christie saying he's a conservative while happily letting this stuff just keep on going indicates that he is nothing more than a RINO, and not a conservative at all.

K.Mooneyham wrote:There is not a job that pays enough money to get me to move to New Jersey, or any other liberal-progressive dominated state. This sort of stuff is one of, though not the only, reason I left California. And Chris Christie saying he's a conservative while happily letting this stuff just keep on going indicates that he is nothing more than a RINO, and not a conservative at all.

I keep trying to tell Ann Coulter that Christie isn't a Conservative every time she comes on TV but she just isn't listening to me.

I think the problem with Christie is much graver. He isn't just allowing this stuff to continue, he is an active participant. I agree that he is no where near as belligerent about it a Bloomburg but I'd be willing to bet that you would have a hard time seeing much daylight between their actual positions on gun related matters.

And by no means is Christie alone. He has strong backing in Trenton and from a lot of the population in Northern NJ. There has been a lot of talk over the years about the Southern part of NJ seceding and forming its own State. Like the Eastern Shore of Maryland (versus the MD half-wits who are near DC) there are a lot of people in southern NJ who share our values on guns. It is another case like Chicago where the will of all of the people is represented by only one gun hating group.

New Jersey really burns me up. Their laws are specifically designed to make decent law abiding citizens into felons. Their laws remind me so much of the "laws of the forest" under William the Conqueror in England. Those laws were hated as well because they were unjust and brutal.

I hate that I have to go through their state a few times a year. Even if we were going somewhere we could bring our guns (which we usually are not) I would not bring them along just because of NJ. Even with the interstate protections that we supposedly have I am betting they would like nothing more than to destroy my life and my families just to be jack wagons.

I wish Texas had a law that stated, "If it isn't against the Law here, no extradition". We sent a man to a NJ prison for something some of us have? I don't care what California, NJ or NY do to their subjects with their anti-freedom laws; Texans ought not support them. I do agree with extradition for violent crimes and for those laws we share, but if it is only against the law there, why support? Same if a Coloradoan got caught with some weed here, got away and back to Colorado. I say home free, just never come back to Texas.

DEB wrote:I wish Texas had a law that stated, "If it isn't against the Law here, no extradition". We sent a man to a NJ prison for something some of us have? I don't care what California, NJ or NY do to their subjects with their anti-freedom laws; Texans ought not support them. I do agree with extradition for violent crimes and for those laws we share, but if it is only against the law there, why support? Same if a Coloradoan got caught with some weed here, got away and back to Colorado. I say home free, just never come back to Texas.

I like the idea, but don't know if it would hold up. The other possibility is that when people are arrested in states like NJ they won't be allowed to return to their home state and will be held until trial.