Prison for driving with flintlock pistol?

[Ranb]

A retired man bought a relic flintlock pistol to add to his collection. It was found by NJ police when he was pulled over for a traffic violation. Unfortunately the law is the law; unless you're a journalist and knowingly violate the law on a taped television program to denigrate gun ownership in the USA.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/flintlock-from-1700s-could-land-elderly-nj-man-in-prison/

A retired teacher is facing 10 years in prison and the loss of his state pension for possessing a flintlock pistol that may not have been fired since George Washington was alive, his attorney told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

In a case that underscores the Garden State's strict gun laws, Gordon Van Gilder, a retired English teacher and collector of historical items, has been charged with criminal possession of a handgun and faces up to 10 years in prison. If the 72-year-old is convicted, the charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years and the pension Van Gilder earned as an educator could be revoked, penalties attorney Evan Nappen called "outrageous."

Gun control advocacy groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Violence Policy Center, did not return requests for comment.

I wonder if they will have anything to say at all? Not sure if I'd have anything to say to Fox either.

Ranb

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Being a gun collector, he knew, or should have known, the law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I choose to blame the police officers and the prosecutors.

It gets into complicated definitions. When does an antique count as a fire arm and when does it not. Would Wild Bills cap and ball revolvers count as handguns or not? Does it being loaded matter.

The problem is that these really are not easy things to define.

But on the bright side there are no charges for the guy who killed the pregnant woman by spinning his .22 revolver around on his finger, as you need to be drunk to actually be negligent with a fire arm in Florida. So these cases even out I guess.

 

[Aepervius]

But on the bright side there are no charges for the guy who killed the pregnant woman by spinning his .22 revolver around on his finger, as you need to be drunk to actually be negligent with a fire arm in Florida. So these cases even out I guess.

*scratch head* I assume this was meant to be sarcastic. Otherwise i am lost why you think it is a bright side .

 

[Ranb]

NJ gun law is a bit complicated. For example; 2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons. The gun he was caught with was a handgun, but also an antique, and in his car, in the glove compartment. There are exemptions for the relics, but they are still controlled as firearms, as are air rifles which makes New Jersey somewhat unique and obtuse.

But yeah, he needs to understand and obey the laws, even the stupid ones if he wants to stay out of trouble and use his money for fun instead of lawyer fees.

Ranb

 

[Checkmite]

I choose to blame the police officers and the prosecutors.

It gets into complicated definitions. When does an antique count as a fire arm and when does it not. Would Wild Bills cap and ball revolvers count as handguns or not? Does it being loaded matter.

The problem is that these really are not easy things to define.

I think they can be "not easy to define", but they don't have to be. A handgun for example can be simply any small firearm designed to be wielded and fired with one hand, with no need to make it any more complicated than that.

 

[madurobob]

NJ gun law is a bit complicated. For example; 2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons. The gun he was caught with was a handgun, but also an antique, and in his car, in the glove compartment.

He could fit a Queen Ann flintlock in his glove compartment? Really?

I can't even fit gloves in my glove compartment...

 

[Spindrift]

There's a difference between a gun from the 18th century and a gun of today? Who knew?

 

[Ranb]

He could fit a Queen Ann flintlock in his glove compartment? Really?

I can't even fit gloves in my glove compartment...

He probably had a real car.

There's a difference between a gun from the 18th century and a gun of today? Who knew?

Lots of people like to see some of history's relics preserved instead of chopped up. Even England allows some antique handguns to be possessed. You might think that a country which makes practicing for an Olympic shooting event a felony would not be so liberal, but they are.

Ranb

 

[Cleon]

Heh, just saw the story this morning and thought "Ranb will have something to say about this."

 

[ponderingturtle]

*scratch head* I assume this was meant to be sarcastic. Otherwise i am lost why you think it is a bright side .

The guy with the gun wasn't charged of course. So not every state is crazy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think they can be "not easy to define", but they don't have to be. A handgun for example can be simply any small firearm designed to be wielded and fired with one hand, with no need to make it any more complicated than that.

So then in this case it was a good application of the law, as he was illegally transporting a handgun.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He probably had a real car.


Lots of people like to see some of history's relics preserved instead of chopped up. Even England allows some antique handguns to be possessed. You might think that a country which makes practicing for an Olympic shooting event a felony would not be so liberal, but they are.

Ranb

And owning it wasn't what he got charged with. It was driving around with it.

 

[madurobob]

He probably had a real car.

I need to trade in my old Miata for an Escalade...

Anyway, I support him being arrested. He knew, or should have known, the law and chose to do it anyway. Just like the "minor traffic infraction" that got him pulled over in the first place.

I also support the prosecutor agreeing to drop the charges once the case is fully reviewed. Because just about any other outcome would be a miscarriage of justice given only what we know from the article.

I have a friend my age who is a NC State Trooper. According to him, back when he started decades ago he was allowed to make judgement calls when he pulled people over - let them go with a warning if he thought it appropriate. But, about a decade ago that changed, They started being tracked and records kept of all their stops, and they were told to follow the strict letter of the law in handing out tickets, arresting people, etc... No more letting people off with a warning. The idea being that it was the prosecutor's and Judge's jobs to determine if the circumstances warrant dismissing charges.

That seems to be the way things work now around here. I was stopped for an expired registration last year. When this had happened in the past I simply said "oops - I'll renew it tomorrow" and they let me go. This time the cop said he had no choice but to write the ticket, but if I mailed in proof of registration being renewed before the court date that the DA would tear up the ticket - no court costs, no nothing. I did, they did, it all worked out with near zero hassle (cost me a stamp to mail in the proof).

Thats how it should work for this guy, assuming we have all the evidence. Dismissed as soon as the DA has all the details. Of course, his spouting off about how much New Jersey sucks might not be helping here...

 

[Ranb]

And owning it wasn't what he got charged with. It was driving around with it.

I understand that as I discussed in post #5. In my post above I was referring to why some relics are exempt from some gun control laws.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

That seems to be the way things work now around here. I was stopped for an expired registration last year. When this had happened in the past I simply said "oops - ...

A police officer stopped me for doing 45 in a 35 on my old Honda 250XL two years ago. I was let off with a warning on the speed and my failure to sign the bike registration form. In fact I've always been let off with a warning when slightly speeding on my bike, but never in the car.

Ranb

 

[Dr. Keith]

I need to trade in my old Miata for an Escalade...

Anyway, I support him being arrested. He knew, or should have known, the law and chose to do it anyway. Just like the "minor traffic infraction" that got him pulled over in the first place.

I also support the prosecutor agreeing to drop the charges once the case is fully reviewed. Because just about any other outcome would be a miscarriage of justice given only what we know from the article.

I have a friend my age who is a NC State Trooper. According to him, back when he started decades ago he was allowed to make judgement calls when he pulled people over - let them go with a warning if he thought it appropriate. But, about a decade ago that changed, They started being tracked and records kept of all their stops, and they were told to follow the strict letter of the law in handing out tickets, arresting people, etc... No more letting people off with a warning. The idea being that it was the prosecutor's and Judge's jobs to determine if the circumstances warrant dismissing charges.

That seems to be the way things work now around here. I was stopped for an expired registration last year. When this had happened in the past I simply said "oops - I'll renew it tomorrow" and they let me go. This time the cop said he had no choice but to write the ticket, but if I mailed in proof of registration being renewed before the court date that the DA would tear up the ticket - no court costs, no nothing. I did, they did, it all worked out with near zero hassle (cost me a stamp to mail in the proof).

Thats how it should work for this guy, assuming we have all the evidence. Dismissed as soon as the DA has all the details. Of course, his spouting off about how much New Jersey sucks might not be helping here...

The reasoning behind this type of change is to try to remove the appearance of bias in their policing. Everyone gets treated the same.

There are reasons why it may not be successful, but it can help to insulate the police from lots of criticism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I understand that as I discussed in post #5. In my post above I was referring to why some relics are exempt from some gun control laws.

Ranb

Is there some article with less outrage and more details on what the charge actually was for?

I think this is a pretty dumb case to push to serious levels.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Out of curiosity, what are the legal requirements for transporting a hand gun in New Jersey?

On the surface of the details seen I feel prosecutorial discretion should be used to drop this case.

However, if the requirements for transporting a hand gun are not very onerous I am not very sympathetic to a collector who failed to observe the laws of handling his collection. Antique firearm usage in crime is pretty much nonexistent but it is still a weapon and a collector should treat these items with the proper respect. This isn't a brandishing case so I feel it should be chocked up to a mistake by the information we have so far.

 

[Ranb]

Is there some article with less outrage and more details on what the charge actually was for?

I think this is a pretty dumb case to push to serious levels.

I've searched and read several articles on it; all are more emotion than fact. Same as usual.

Out of curiosity, what are the legal requirements for transporting a hand gun in New Jersey?

I think it has to be in a locked case and/or in the trunk.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/AL13/113_.HTM

1. N.J.S.2C:39-5 is amended to read as follows:
b. Handguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the [third] second degree.

There are exceptions.

Ranb

ETA; Here is a link to the law; http://www.gtpd.org/pdf files/New Jersey Firearms Laws.pdf
Page 206 paragraph g shows the "trunk" exemption for transporting. I couldn't be bothered to look up exactly which portions of the statute are exempted.