From the JPOF: Gun Control Targets Gun Owners
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: From the JPOF: Gun Control Targets Gun Owners

  1. #1

    Angry From the JPOF: Gun Control Targets Gun Owners

    From the JPOF:


    Gun Control Targets Gun Owners




    The Knox Report, By Jeff Knox, May 24th 2013


    Dustin Reininger
    Dustin Reininger is serving a five-year sentence with a three-year minimum before he's eligible for parole. His crime? Pulling off the highway to get some rest during a long drive.

    Reininger, a veteran of both the Army and the Air Force, and a former police officer, was moving from Maine back to Texas, but only made it as far as New Jersey. He got tired and parked behind a building in Reading Township, NJ. Had he held out for another 20 minutes, there wouldn't be a story about Dustin Reininger because he wouldn't have had a problem in Pennsylvania, but he was tired so he stopped in New Jersey.

    Police found him asleep in his SUV early that morning. Reininger just wanted to move on down the road, but officers thought something in the back seat looked like a gun case and considered that probable cause for a search. They found several rifles, shotguns, and handguns, as well as hollow point bullets, and a "high-capacity" magazine.
    Of course, all of that is perfectly legal in Maine and in Texas – or even 24 miles up the road in Pennsylvania – but it's not legal in New Jersey without a permit. Federal law provides safe passage for someone transporting guns through a restrictive jurisdiction, but the jury didn't get to hear about that law.

    An appeals court panel said that law didn't apply because it specifies that the guns should be locked in the trunk, and Reininger's SUV didn't have a trunk. They also ruled that officers were justified in searching Reininger's car because they recognized the gun cases as evidence of a crime. The case could go to the State Supreme Court, but I wouldn't make any bets on the chances of a new trial.

    Dustin Reininger's life has been destroyed simply because he innocently possessed his legally owned guns in the wrong place at the wrong time. A minimum of 3 years in a New Jersey prison is no cake walk. Reininger will, for the rest of his life, have to mark "Yes" on job applications asking if he's ever been convicted of a felony, and he is barred from ever owning firearms again. So much for his career in law enforcement.
    This is what gun control laws do. They turn innocent people into criminals, destroying lives, while protecting no one. A spokesman for the NJ Attorney General's office told the AP that the office was "gratified that the court accepted our arguments that none of the issues had any legal merit, or provided a basis to upset the defendant's conviction."
    It doesn't matter to the police or the politicians or the Attorney General that this guy wasn't hurting anyone, or that he wasn't planning to hurt anyone. All that matters to them is that they caught and convicted someone who was in technical violation of their hoplophobic gun laws. And unfortunately, this is an attitude that is prevalent in too many police departments and AG's offices around the country. Reininger's story is not unique, it just happens to be a recent, and particularly egregious, example of something we've been seeing routinely for over 40 years.

    The other side of the coin is just as bad. While gun laws routinely ensnare the innocent, they are just as routinely dismissed in prosecuting serious career criminals. Some gun laws can't even be enforced against criminals. For instance, a convicted felon cannot be prosecuted for failing to register his illegal weapon because doing so would be self-incriminating. So we end up with serious, violent criminals released back on the street, while harmless people like Dustin Reininger are zealously prosecuted for technical violations – and the prosecution is "gratified."

    The stories of people unjustly prosecuted – and persecuted – in the name of gun control would fill a book. The history is clear; no matter how innocuous or "common sense" a gun law might seem, once it goes into force it is inevitably used to harass and abuse gun owners.
    That's just one of the reasons gun owners opposed the recent Manchin-Toomey proposal to extend background checks to private sales. Among the very troubling provisions in that proposal, the most obvious danger is the requirement that even transactions involving concealed carry permit holders – who are exempt from background checks – would have been required to go through a dealer. The only reason to do that is to create a permanent record of the transaction – registration – something gun owners oppose for very good reasons.
    Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. History shows that gun laws always end up being used to harass and persecute regular gun owners. Gun owners have every reason to expect that any law that can be used to abuse them will be used to abuse them.

    Are gun owners paranoid because we believe gun control laws threaten us?

    Dustin Reininger is serving a five-year sentence with a three-year minimum before he's eligible for parole because he pulled off the highway to get some rest during a long drive.

    If we are paranoid, it's because we need to be.

    STUPID

    Cnon

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    APVGUY(?) should be along shortly to say "This evil man is right where he belongs!".


    Sent from behind enemy lines.

  4. #3
    A travesty. New Jersey does this exact thing on a regular basis, and has got away with it. I am reminded of highwaymen, brigands who waylaid innocent travelers on the road. Their pleasure in doing this injustice is obscene.

  5. #4
    Also a reminder to everyone that you need to be more than a little familiar with the laws of any state you traverse or make an appearance in with respect to firearms, and take the appropriate precautions. I'm not sure an appeal before SCOTUS, if it gets that far, will help this man.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    I simply do not even consider traveling through states with draconian gun laws. I also research the gun laws of any states that I will be going through before I travel. If I can not travel armed I go around even if it is a lenghthly detour.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    The governor of this state is being courted by the republican good old boys to run for president. Really, what a joke. What happened to the permit law enforcement receives so they can travel in every state. Didn't he not have one or did New Jersey just ignore it?
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    The governor of this state is being courted by the republican good old boys to run for president. Really, what a joke. What happened to the permit law enforcement receives so they can travel in every state. Didn't he not have one or did New Jersey just ignore it?
    Yes, good old, Chris Christie

    Gee, could he be Anti-Gun, too?

    Cnon

  9. #8
    Here's another view of the story................He apparently lied to the cop.................and was parked in a bank's parking lot.

    Man Arrested in NJ While Moving from ME to TX was Doing More Than Just Transporting Guns

    Cnon

  10. #9
    Most common sense gun laws are actually far more common dense once you think about what they will accomplish.
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Cnon View Post
    Here's another view of the story................He apparently lied to the cop.................and was parked in a bank's parking lot.

    Man Arrested in NJ While Moving from ME to TX was Doing More Than Just Transporting Guns

    Cnon
    Thank you. Good post. Mr. Reininger may be something less than a model human being if the linked article is based on fact and is not just a smear to cover the actions of the state. I don't know. I think it likely Mr. Reininger would have been arrested whether he told the police officer the truth or not, once the officer saw the gun cases, readily accessible, in his SUV. He was foolish, and clearly not in compliance with NJ law or FOPA. Unless other information surfaces, Reininger was not a known criminal before this event, was transporting his property across NJ, and because he did not do so properly is now a convicted felon. He had harmed no one. This man's life is ruined because he was foolish, and because of laws that seem to me to be designed as much to ensnare the careless and unwary as to be any bulwark against crime. See Revell vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Though charges were ultimately dropped against Mr. Revell, he spent more than 3 days in jail, and his property was not returned to him for more than 2 years. His attempt to sue for damages was denied all the way to SCOTUS. NJ will collar you with glee if you run afoul of their legal maze, and that is obscene.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast