Archived Posts » 59,757,950
Illegal weapons found in Middletown home; man arrested
11/27/2011 10:52:02 PM
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011311220054
MIDDLETOWN — A township man with a cache of illegal weapons at his home was arrested twice on Friday, police said.
One arrest was on a simple assault charge, according to Detective Lt. Steve Dollinger. The other was on a series of weapons charges, he said.
...snip...
Criminal complaints against Miksza say he was also arrested for, during the course of a domestic violence investigation, possessing the following: three handguns and one antique handgun without a permit, four rifles without a permit, a stun gun and 7.62-millimeter hollow-point bullets. He is accused of obstructing the investigation by concealing weapons inside his Thousand Oaks Drive residence, a complaint against him said.
He was formally charged with simple assault, obstructing an investigation, unlawful possession of a rifle, unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of hollow-point bullets and possession of a stun gun, Dollinger said.
ps:
helpful hint: the PD will be less interested in your life if you keep your cool and not get into a DV situation in the first place.
ar-jedi
11/27/2011 11:14:18 PM
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
11/27/2011 11:15:38 PM
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
11/27/2011 11:20:12 PM
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
11/27/2011 11:29:27 PM
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
I'll tell you, my interest in firearms has totally changed my perception of the media. If they can't even get the minor points right when it comes to firearms, how and why should we expect them to get the story right in other matters? National security? Politics? Corruption?
It's telling, and more than a bit depressing, that on the entire staff of the App, there isn't one person who understands the basic rules of firearms ownership in NJ.
11/27/2011 11:35:02 PM
Originally Posted By fly223:
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
i dearly hope you are not registering your firearms.
ar-jedi
11/28/2011 12:32:47 AM
We all know the press is in the bag, but this proves that it's a barf bag. 
11/28/2011 6:48:10 AM
Originally Posted By fly223:
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
You are... you're also allowed to possess HP rounds in your home. That doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it. You could be arrested for walking down the street on a sunny day, admiring the scenery. And I'll bet the "obstructing an investigation by concealing weapons inside his residence" means he had them in a safe.
However - if he really had a stun gun, he's screwed.
11/28/2011 7:08:55 AM
Originally Posted By Tom488:
You are... you're also allowed to possess HP rounds in your home. That doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it. You could be arrested for walking down the street on a sunny day, admiring the scenery. And I'll bet the "obstructing an investigation by concealing weapons inside his residence" means he had them in a safe.
However - if he really had a stun gun, he's screwed.
Originally Posted By fly223:
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
I thought you were allowed to own a firearm in your home without it being registered? I might be wrong.
You are... you're also allowed to possess HP rounds in your home. That doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it. You could be arrested for walking down the street on a sunny day, admiring the scenery. And I'll bet the "obstructing an investigation by concealing weapons inside his residence" means he had them in a safe.
However - if he really had a stun gun, he's screwed.
Ya if he had a stug-gun he is screwed big time lol..
11/28/2011 11:11:22 AM
Not far from me either.
I wonder if his antique pistol may have been a replica cap & ball revolver from Cabelas?
I wonder if his antique pistol may have been a replica cap & ball revolver from Cabelas?
11/28/2011 11:55:05 PM
What do you expect, when you live in the Peoples Republic of New Jerseystan? LOL
11/29/2011 6:07:54 AM
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
It is my understanding that you need neither to own HGs in NJ. If you moved to NJ and had purchased them in your former state (legally)
you don't need a pistol permit OR a State of NJ Firearms PURCHASER Identification Card...correct?
11/29/2011 8:00:51 AM
Originally Posted By EdB:
It is my understanding that you need neither to own HGs in NJ. If you moved to NJ and had purchased them in your former state (legally)
you don't need a pistol permit OR a State of NJ Firearms PURCHASER Identification Card...correct?
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
Hmmm....not far from me. I wonder if the guy ever had an FID card.
it appears to be too complicated for the reporter to comprehend the difference between an FID and a "permit".
ar-jedi
It is my understanding that you need neither to own HGs in NJ. If you moved to NJ and had purchased them in your former state (legally)
you don't need a pistol permit OR a State of NJ Firearms PURCHASER Identification Card...correct?
So I have been told by Counsel. This state is so FU'd that I would trust that in the hands of less than knowledgeable LEO. A HG bust is still a HG bust and they get extra points for gettin' dem guns off da schtreets.
11/29/2011 8:30:58 AM
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
A HG bust is still a HG bust and they get extra points for gettin' dem guns off da schtreets.
A HG bust is still a HG bust and they get extra points for gettin' dem guns off da schtreets.
Or out of homes, apparently...
11/29/2011 9:19:31 AM
Originally Posted By Tom488:
Or out of homes, apparently...
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
A HG bust is still a HG bust and they get extra points for gettin' dem guns off da schtreets.
A HG bust is still a HG bust and they get extra points for gettin' dem guns off da schtreets.
Or out of homes, apparently...
Homes? We don't need no stinking homes. All private property is public property, so therefore individual rights mean nothing. No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
11/29/2011 12:10:18 PM
The law in NJ is what the arresting officer says it is! Even if he hasn't got a clue! A real good lawyer on retainer is probably a good idea for any gun owner in Jersey. Look for a guy that defends cops who have had to discharge their firearm. If you can afford it! Doc
If you can afford it! Doc11/29/2011 8:00:50 PM
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
11/29/2011 8:36:43 PM
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
11/29/2011 11:26:28 PM
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
in NJ, a Castle Law state, you have no duty to retreat in your own home.
see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4.
11/30/2011 8:21:38 AM
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
in NJ, a Castle Law state, you have no duty to retreat in your own home.
see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4.
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
in NJ, a Castle Law state, you have no duty to retreat in your own home.
see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4.
So New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.) . So my previous understanding of retreating to the bowls of my house (or out a window) is incorrect? And pleading mercy and for your life, while shitting yourself, were all must haves before for distributing justice protecting yourself, family? Oh, are my dogs included?
11/30/2011 10:23:14 AM
2C:3-4 is precisely why I roll my eyes when people get excited about CCW reciprocity. If one of our friends from the great State of PA were to carry here and find himself in an unfortunate situation, he probably would not be allowed to employ dead force unless he was trapped in a dead-end ally or similar.
NJ expects its citizens and visitors to behave like proper Frenchmen/Liberals:
- Run if you can
- Beg the criminal to "stop it, please" if you can't run
- Surrender if it would diffuse the situation
- Fight back only when you are left with a choice between death or prison.
NJ expects its citizens and visitors to behave like proper Frenchmen/Liberals:
- Run if you can
- Beg the criminal to "stop it, please" if you can't run
- Surrender if it would diffuse the situation
- Fight back only when you are left with a choice between death or prison.
12/4/2011 9:04:40 PM
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
in NJ, a Castle Law state, you have no duty to retreat in your own home.
see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4.
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
No castle doctrine necessary because no "man" is a king in his own castles. Fuck NJ.
i know you are ranting, and i like it, but NJ does in fact have a castle doctrine.
ar-jedi
Are you referring to the Duty to Retreat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
in NJ, a Castle Law state, you have no duty to retreat in your own home.
see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4.
True, but no "Castle Law" is complete without an Immunity from Civil Lawsuit clause. That is all I need is for some scumbag's family to sue me for defending the lives of my family.
12/5/2011 7:56:32 PM
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
12/5/2011 8:20:02 PM
Originally Posted By auburn2:
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
nothing.
ar-jedi
12/5/2011 8:30:18 PM
Originally Posted By auburn2:
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
And, your point is?
The law is what the law-enforcers say it is.
i.e., I was at the range yesterday, I listened to a guy tell a story about how the State Police confiscated his blocked Magpuls.
Suck it. You don't like it, pay an attorney.
12/5/2011 10:58:27 PM
Originally Posted By dontalo:
And, your point is?
The law is what the law-enforcers say it is.
i.e., I was at the range yesterday, I listened to a guy tell a story about how the State Police confiscated his blocked Magpuls.
Suck it. You don't like it, pay an attorney.
Originally Posted By auburn2:
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
Hollowpoints in the home are legal.
"(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)]."
What am I missing?
And, your point is?
The law is what the law-enforcers say it is.
i.e., I was at the range yesterday, I listened to a guy tell a story about how the State Police confiscated his blocked Magpuls.
Suck it. You don't like it, pay an attorney.
hold on cowboy, there will be none of that!
thank you.
12/8/2011 1:40:25 AM
Or maybe since it was a DV with an assault, the Vic got a TRO- which would ban him from possessing any weapons. When he was served the TRO -= maybe he denied possessing any firearms. When a search was conducted they found them- which would then be unlawful possession as well as obstruction. No excuse for the hollow point charge- I can't defend that one.
And if you expect the media to get a story right- you'll be waiting a while.
And if you expect the media to get a story right- you'll be waiting a while.
