2 men arrested on NJ Transit bus for possessing air rifle

[Remmah2]

Gun laws gone wrong? A permit to own an air rifle in New Jersey? I'll bet it had a bayonet lug and a barrel shroud.


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/2_men_arrested_on_nj_transit_b.html

WEEHAWKEN — Two men aboard an NJ Transit bus were arrested on weapons charges tonight when they were found in possession of an air rifle, authorities said.

The two were charged with possession of a weapon without a permit after they allegedly purchased the air rifle in Pennsylvania, where permits are not required for the guns, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

[MineralMan]

1. Depends on the air rifle, really.

There have been recent advances in this technology, with some new products capable of serious velocities and bullet weight. The type of air rifle wasn't mentioned.

[Euromutt]

2. It doesn't depend in New Jersey

New Jersey classes any air gun as a "firearm," including paintball markers, if I understand correctly.

[MineralMan]

3. Oh. Well, that's interesting.

Here in St. Paul, MN, air rifles and pistols are treated as firearms for the purpose of the law prohibiting discharge of firearms within the city limits. Nobody pays much attention to it, though. I have a 10 meter air rifle range in my basement. It's tons of fun when kids are visiting. They really enjoy it. So do adults. New Jersey has different laws, I guess. I wonder if the people arrested knew what the laws were?

[ret5hd]

4. So, technically, a soda straw can get you arrested.

[Glassunion]

21. Paintball markers are not considered a firearm, unless you are naughty with it.

Then you can be charged with a firearms crime.

They are not considered firearms and are not illegal; and the State Police do not keep records on their ownership.

[petronius]

28. It's a pretty inclusive law:

"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic
rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected
any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by
means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or
explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm, which is in the nature of
an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is
a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or
is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch
in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

http://www.nj.gov/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html

How big is a paintball pellet? That 3/8" limit may exclude those (and "sufficient force to injure" seems to rule out the soda straw suggestion from another poster... :) )

[Euromutt]

31. Ah; paintball markers are typically .68-cal

So that would exclude them from the law. I stand corrected.

[iverglas]

5. oh, no, Paco! It's Pellet Gun Bill all over again!

You'll miss some of the dialogue since the translation into wingdingese on one of the best posts has been replaced by blank space ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x10520


Btw, do people facing an air rifle in the hands of someone threatening them always know it's "just" an air rifle?

If these two didn't know it was illegal to possess the thing in New Jersey, why did they go to Pennsylvania to get it? Nothing to see here ...

[Remmah2]

7. Excessive gun laws. Unequal applicability.

BTW they weren't threatening anybody. People that make up some of these laws have overactive imaginations.

[iverglas]

9. "BTW they weren't threatening anybody." Who said they were?

I asked a question relevant to the New Jersey law regarding air rifles.

[ileus]

6. Isn't this the state that doesn't trust citizens to pump their own petrol?

[iverglas]

10. No.

Glad you asked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_station

All stations in New Jersey and Oregon offer only full service and mini service; attendants are required to pump gas because customers are barred by statutes in both states from pumping their own gas. New Jersey banned self-service gasoline in 1949 after lobbying by service station owners. Proponents of the ban cite safety and jobs as reasons to keep the ban. Likewise, the 1951 Oregon statute banning self-service gasoline lists seventeen different justifications, including the flammability of gas, the risk of crime from customers leaving their car, the toxic fumes emitted by gasoline, and the jobs created by requiring mini service.

Huh.

Interestingly:

At some stations (such as Vons, Costco, BJ's Wholesale Club, or Sam's Club), consumers are required to hold a special membership card in order to receive the discounted price, and/or pay only with either the chain's cash card or a credit card issuer exclusive to that chain. In some areas, such as New Jersey, this practice is illegal, and stations are required to sell to all.

Why would you assert that "doesn't trust citizens to pump their own petrol"? Doesn't even make sense, let alone resemble the truth.

[Glassunion]

13. I would assert that NJ does not trust citizens to pump their own fuel.

If you look at it from the legislative standpoint and at the text found in the NJ law regarding citizens pumping their own fuel, it would seem to me that the state does not trust the citizen and that they pose a "safety threat".

Even in the text you provided, safety is one of the things that proponents cite. "Proponents of the ban cite safety and jobs as reasons to keep the ban."

Personally, I like how many people self-service employs as a byproduct of these "safety" measures.

From the NJ statute...
34:3A-4. Findings, declarations
The Legislature finds and declares that:
a. Because of the fire hazards directly associated with dispensing fuel, it is in the public interest that gasoline station operators have the control needed over that activity to ensure compliance with appropriate safety procedures, including turning off vehicle engines and refraining from smoking while fuel is dispensed;

b. At self-service gasoline stations in other states, cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of the activities of customers dispensing gasoline, or to give their undivided attention to observing customers; therefore, when customers, rather than attendants, are permitted to dispense fuel, it is far more difficult to enforce compliance with safety procedures;

c. The State needs stronger measures to enforce both compliance by customers with the ban on self-service and compliance by attendants with safety procedures;

d. The higher general liability insurance premium rates charged to self-service stations reflect the fact that customers who leave their vehicles to dispense gasoline or other inflammable liquids face significant inconveniences and dangers, including the risks of crime and fall-related personal injury, which are a special burden to drivers with physical infirmities, such as the handicapped and some senior citizens;

e. Exposure to toxic gasoline fumes represents a health hazard when customers dispense their own gasoline, particularly in the case of pregnant women;

[iverglas]

14. always amusing

Yes, all public health and safety legislation and regulations are adopted because governments do not "trust" people. Yes indeed. No bout adoubt it.

What a gas you are. Hahaha. A gas. Get it?

[Glassunion]

15. Actually, your sarcastic comment is(to me) closer to the truth.

"Yes, all public health and safety legislation and regulations are adopted because governments do not "trust" people."

Why is it that we enact public health and safety regulations? Are the people that run business, consumers and citizens to be trusted to take care of the environment or their fellow citizen?

If we trust people, why do we have regulations regarding the burning of trash, disposal of waste, the recycling of toxic materials, dispensing of fuel, emissions, etc.?

So, my question to you, given the first 5 findings and/or declarations in A through E in the NJ statute, what do you think is the primary purpose for the "safety legislation"?

[iverglas]

16. "findings"

I've generally found the "findings" in US legislation I've looked at (in particular firearms-related legislation) to be self-serving statements of things very different from facts. So I don't pay a lot of attention to them.


Why is it that we enact public health and safety regulations? Are the people that run business, consumers and citizens to be trusted to take care of the environment or their fellow citizen?

Just so's I know: are you a loonytarian?

I'm a social democrat.

It would be useful to know your ideology. If I'm talking to someone who opposes all forms of public services / regulation of private activities, I will probably take a pass. Ron Paul is insane, and I find arguing with the insane or their acolytes kinda pointless.


The primary purpose of public safety legislation such as you cite is to protect people from the actions of others -- be those actions intentional, negligent, careless or based on ignorance.

You can call it "not trust" if you like. I'll call it "have reasonable expectation of dangerous behaviour".

Perhaps you think that such expectations are not reasonable: that it is unreasonable to expect that some corporations will dump toxic waste, that some individuals will toss their household garbage in conservation areas, etc. etc. Forgive me if I wouldn't believe someone who said that.

So we're left with reasonable expectations of actions on the part of some individuals and entities that will endanger or harm others. And I have to assume you're saying we should do nothing to try to avert the danger or prevent the harm. Because we should "trust" people.

Is that the approach you take when someone offers to invest your money for you?

[Glassunion]

19. You completely misunderstand me and appear to have an issue with civility.

I have been civil. But in two posts you elude that I am an ass "What a gas you are. Hahaha. A gas. Get it?" and then accuse me of not being a Democrat.

I do not doubt that you are a Social Democrat and would not question that.

It would be useful to know your ideology. If I'm talking to someone who opposes all forms of public services / regulation of private activities, I will probably take a pass. Ron Paul is insane, and I find arguing with the insane or their acolytes kinda pointless.

No I do not oppose all forms of public service. I do not trust corporations, nor people to always do the right thing. So you can rest assured that you are not arguing with the insane.

You can call it "not trust" if you like. I'll call it "have reasonable expectation of dangerous behaviour".

A definition of trust is: "confident expectation of something", so to me, what your are calling it, is basically "not trust", however you are just using the definition of the word, and not the word itself.

Perhaps you think that such expectations are not reasonable: that it is unreasonable to expect that some corporations will dump toxic waste, that some individuals will toss their household garbage in conservation areas, etc. etc. Forgive me if I wouldn't believe someone who said that.

I have no doubt that these expectations are reasonable, and on top of that I'm fairly confident that if allowed to, there would be some citizens in the state who would indeed do something wrong. However, the point going back to #6, is that the state "as a whole" does not trust its citizens to pump their own gas. Unlike 48 other states, NJ feels that it is indeed a significant threat to public safety to allow its citizens to pump gas.

So we're left with reasonable expectations of actions on the part of some individuals and entities that will endanger or harm others. And I have to assume you're saying we should do nothing to try to avert the danger or prevent the harm. Because we should "trust" people.

Your assumption about me is wrong. I weigh and balance. Should we regulate something if it poses an insignificant danger? Should we regulate something that has never been an issue(solution looking for a problem)?

Personally for the state of NJ, I am all for requiring full-service. I was born in and lived in NJ the majority of my life. I've been employed by the same company in NJ for the past 2 decades.
#1. Full-service gas brings in thousands of jobs for those with little or no skills.
#2. Compared to the average consumer, the attendant is fully aware of safety procedures and in all likelihood can handle an emergency faster than one inside the station and will be better prepared to handle it than the customer.
#3. Keeps the price of gas down. Insurance for only full-serve stations is lower. On the average you only pay .06 a gallon for the attendant to be there then another .02 to .06 for the station to make money. The average higher volume station(100,000+ gallons per month) only pulls in .08 to .10 cents over cost(in NJ) on gas. This covers everything from the attendant, maintenance and utilities then normal retail profit. This number is higher in other states. NJ also benefits from this as we have IIRC the lowest state taxes per gallon of fuel. I think about .14 cents per gallon.
#4. This law is quite old, and there are thousands of customers who have never, or who have rarely pumped their own gas. This could be confusing and frustrating for those who have never pumped their own gas.

But overall, I would trust that for the vast, vast majority it would not be an issue and pose such an insignificant threat to public safety that it does not need to be law. But for the other reasons I outlined, I would like to see it stay. But my feelings were not the motivation behind the original law. The original law was originally put into place as a public safety. A few years back safety was the biggest issue when our governor tossed up the idea to have it repealed. That idea died faster than a Mayfly, thank goodness.

[iverglas]

20. "misunderstand" .......

elude that I am an ass "What a gas you are. Hahaha. A gas. Get it?" ...

Apart from that problematic "elude" (eh?) -- "What a gas you are" was a play on the subject matter of the discussion: the pumping of GAS at gas stations. Good lord. How hard did you have to work not to get that one?

... and then accuse me of not being a Democrat.

Are there no loonytarian Democrats? Going by a decade in this place, I'd thought there were brazillions of them.


I have no doubt that these expectations are reasonable, and on top of that I'm fairly confident that if allowed to, there would be some citizens in the state who would indeed do something wrong. However, the point going back to #6, is that the state "as a whole" does not trust its citizens to pump their own gas. Unlike 48 other states, NJ feels that it is indeed a significant threat to public safety to allow its citizens to pump gas.

Frankly, I don't know how we got here ...

I don't really doubt that the actual reasons for the legislation are as suggested elsewhere: economic. As I did say, I commonly find the "findings" in US legislation to be self-serving and not an accurate statement of the actual motivations for enacting the legislation.

The oil refining industry wields a bit of clout in New Jersey, doesn't it?

Personally for the state of NJ, I am all for requiring full-service. I was born in and lived in NJ the majority of my life. I've been employed by the same company in NJ for the past 2 decades.

Apparently people in Wisconsin feel the same way, according to that wiki: part of the culture. ;)

Just like in Ontario where you buy your booze at the guv'mint store. It's what makes us all us.

[Glassunion]

25. We can agree to disagree.

You dismiss the text from the law as you feel it is of no import as to the motivation for the law. I do not.

We disagree.

[ileus]

26. I'll agree with ya...FWIW.

[Glassunion]

30. Thanks. I got very tired of living there, but I work for the best company EVER

So I just jumped over the Delaware and kept the same job. It's worth the commute.

[-..__...]

17. Hey... it's New Joisy

The problem could easily solved by requiring motorists wishing to pump their own gas to attend a rigorous State approved safety/certification class.

Attendees would have to demonstrate their proficiency in gas pumping procedures, safety, and general knowledge of EPA and State hazardous materials laws and regulations.

Upon satisfactory completing the course, the person will be issued a wallet sized ID card granting them the privilege of dispensing their own fuel from

any NJ service station.

The system could be streamlined by having a magnetic strip on the license that must be swiped in order to activate the pump (an RFID chip would be another option).

I figure between the State run classes, processing, licensing fees, fingerprints and obligatory $50.00 add on cost to be applied to the general fund and/or

children whose health has been endangered by gas fumes, the State could easily charge $500.00 for a 3 year license.

The State generates more revenue...

The oppressed get to pump their own gas...

Problem solved.

[ileus]

23. a petrol pumping endorsement....LOL kinda like a CCP only different.

[ileus]

22. I thought it was...I've worked in NJ enough to know but that was the 90's

[SteveM]

27. Gun-controller/banners pump their own gas here, however. nt

[Euromutt]

29. "A" state, not "the" state; Oregon doesn't either

Though in Oregon's case, it was pretty obviously an attempt at job creation.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. "And with minimal effort they could be easily converted into a mchine gun "

" Any kid , any parent , any ADULT , that goes out of the house with this " (inserts magazine backwards)" they need to be ready for trouuble " .

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Hahahaha yeah, I've always wanted a 'machine gun' that explodes in my hands!

Best feature ever.

[-..__...]

12. As Jed Clampett would say - "Pitiful .. just pitiful"

I don't know if I should laugh or be concerned that an ATF agent would make such an amateurish mistake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8-ePGqBmM&feature=player_embedded#at=21

[Katya Mullethov]

18. If he does it long enough

He'll be paid handsomely not to do it anymore .

[DonP]

24. Wasn't he promoted to run the Texas Field Office? ntxt

[flamin lib]

32. Gone wrong or keeping uo with technology?

http://www.airgunwarehouseinc.com/large-bore-caliber-rifles.html

These ain't your father's Daisy Red Rider. My .22 gets better than 900 fps. Has the energy of a .22 short. I'd avoid getting shot with one.

[iverglas]

33. a fun bit on CBC television a while back

Cops try to tell the difference between fake and real under simulated conditions.

Watch the video and you can play too. ;)

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/the_trouble_with_fake_guns/main.html

The exercise starts at 10:00, and then there's another segment of it at 16:45.

A realistic-looking fake gun can endanger the person holding it.

[hansberrym]

34. Brings to mind my prize possession back in '72, a Daisy Spittin' Image BB gun, which was replica

of the Winchester Model 1894. And what kid didn't have a pair of cap pistols and lots of rolls of caps?

Back then I thought nothing about throwing imy Spittin' Image BB gun over my shoulder and walking across the street and into the neaby fields for target practice. In those days a police officer wouldn't shoot a person and ask questions later for carrying a real gun in the proper manner -let alone a look alike bb gun.

I wouldn't let my kids carry one around by themselves today, too much fear, at least in my area.


Of course if someone acts like a damn fool and points a replica at someone, they ought not complain when they get shot or severely roughed up by a cop or passerby thinking the worst. Replicas are nothing new, but these are different times.



Iverglas - I hadn't posted in the guns forum for some time, but couldn't pass up the chance to (sort of) agree with you on something.