search
top

Charges Dropped in New Jersey Antique Gun Case

It would seem that someone gave the Cumberland County, NJ prosecutor a clue that putting an elderly man away for 10 years (likely life in his case) is not really an appropriate move for someone who collects 18th century stuff and managed to pick up a flintlock pistol. Charges have just been dropped without further comment from the DA.

13 Responses to “Charges Dropped in New Jersey Antique Gun Case”

  1. lucusloc says:

    IS he getting his gun back?

  2. Archer says:

    That’s great news, but….

    Will the law be repealed or amended to allow antiques? Because it seems the real problem is that the law allows this kind of unnecessary crap.

    • Cemetery's Gun Blob says:

      NJ will NEVER repeal this, or any other, anti gun law. They’ll just dismiss charges, so there will never be a chance to argue against this law in court.

  3. Jeff O says:

    It’s a bit of a shame they dropped the charges; news articles like this make the average person more aware of how rediculous New Jersey gun laws really are. It’s just one more way we can keep the pressure on lawmakers in all states.

    • Greg says:

      This would have. Been a perfect case to take to SCOTUS in hopes of destroying n.j. gun laws.

      • Stuart the Viking says:

        I’m not so sure that he could have fought this on 2A grounds.

        I imagine that the prosecutor would argue that the piece is no longer in a state where it could be considered “arms” in any useful sense.

        They could then argue that there is a government interest in keeping these possibly dangerous items out of the hands of the people for safety reasons. After all, firing a 300 year old pistol is bound to be bad for someone’s health.

        ow… now my head hurts from thinking like an anti. Gee thanks a lot.

        s

  4. Nick L. EMT-P says:

    I wonder if any gentle pressure came from the Governor’s office.

  5. Lamont says:

    Now give him his property back!

  6. Renegade_Azzy says:

    I would like to see the people involved in his incarceration put on trial.

    • Old 1811 says:

      RA: They can’t be put on trial. They were following the law.
      The problem is the law, not (exclusively) the people who enforce it.
      NJ is trying very hard not to get a conviction of their laws appealed to the Supreme Court, since they won’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
      The only hope for NJ gun owners is a binding decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or a Supreme Court decision. (Since the Third Circuit also includes PA and DE, there’s at least some hope.)

      • Ian Argent says:

        3rd Circuit ruled for the state and against a right to possess a firearm outside the home in a case out of NJ a little while back. SCOTUS didn’t grant cert.

  7. Merle says:

    Yeah, cockroaches do run from the light!

    Merle

  8. Ronnie says:

    Here’s my question now: Now that this New Jersey county prosecutor has dropped the gun charge against the elderly man for possesing an unloaded 300 year old flintlock pistol in the glovebox of his car, will he soon be charged with a “disorderly persons” offense in municipal court?

    I happen to know that New Jersey usually works like this – people first get charged with what what are called “indictable” offenses, which are known as felonies in all of the other normal states, then the prosecutor declines to pursue the case. Rather than just be done with everything right then and there, New Jersey’s laws allow for a proverbial second bite of the apple by giving the municpality where the arrest initially occurred the right to “ammend” the “indictable” offense to a “non indictable” offense – otherwise known as a misdemeanor in all of the normal states – and this is where the defendant is typically charged with a “disorderly persons” offense. This is where a municipal court judge, under the threat of jail time up to 364 days, gets to rubber stamp every defendant’s case with a guilty verdict if the defendant refuses to just plead guilty and pay all of the hefty municipal court fines. This is nothing more than a total shake down operation, of course, and yet just another reason why I despise the state of New Jersey just so, so much. This is essentially the epitome of sheer evil in my view, or, as the people who work within the system of New Jersey’s municipal courts will likely tell you, what “keeps the people safe” or whatever.

top