AmmoLand.com

By Dan Roberts

NJ Legislature Supports Police Use of “Extra Lethal “Ammunition

AmmoLand Gun News

Trenton, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- For more than thirty years NJ Firearms Law has all but banned Citizen use, ownership or possession of hollow point type ammunition, but with the obligatory exemption for Military and Police.

It is true that Citizens can in fact buy, and use hollow points under extremely limited and exceptionally narrowly tailored circumstances, but even most cops aren’t aware of them.

Ask nearly any anti-gun politician or spokesperson for an anti-gun group and the inevitable answer justifying the law is predicated on utter ignorance and unsupportable rhetoric. Opponents will invariably exclaim that hollow point bullets are “extra lethal “ and “they are designed solely to cause devastating wounds, inflicting un-necessary pain and trauma“ and they “pose a grave threat “ or other variations of the meme.

Yet there’s that pesky exemption for the Military and Police?

The only conclusion one can reach is that the Legislature approves of and supports the issuance and potential use of these “extra lethal” rounds of ammunition by Police Officers in the performance of their duties, essentially suggesting and overtly approving that it’s perfectly acceptable for an alleged criminal to be shot by a Police Officer with them if the situation calls for it.

This means, it is the stated policy of the NJ Legislature that a person engaged in a criminal act, but not having yet had a trial or having been convicted of such an act in a Court of Law, can suffer “ un-necessary pain and trauma “ and suffer “ devastating wounds “ if an Officer decides to shoot the suspect for whatever reason.

Now, let’s shed the harsh light of scientific facts on the issue.
A hollow point bullet is not designed “solely to cause devastating wounds “ its design and construction is engineered to have the bullet expand on impact with a surface, any surface; including concrete, steel, wood, fabric and yes, flesh. By expanding on impact, the surface area of the bullet increases and causes the kinetic energy stored in the bullet to be dispersed over a greater surface area, that’s it!

Remember I mentioned fabric amongst the list of surfaces that will cause a hollow point to expand when it impacts? What are Police issue Kevlar Bullet Resistant Vests made from? That’s right, fabric. In fact, when Police issue Body Armor is tested by both the manufacturer and the government agency responsible for certifying its effectiveness, it’s tested against hollow point bullets!

Police Body Armor is actually much more likely to be more effective at stopping a hollow point bullet then a “full metal jacket“ type of bullet, which is the height of irony. Because of the Legislature’s incredible ignorance of the subject and their apparent willingness to swallow the baseless lies and fear mongering of Anti gunners..

..they’ve unintentionally created a more potentially deadly situation for those they claim to be trying to protect, Police and innocent Citizens.

I have in my custody an internal Ballistics Test Report from the NJ State Police that conclusively proves that the use of full metal jacket ammunition in a defensive shooting situation is exponentially riskier in terms of the likelihood of over penetration and or “target pass through“ with the significant potential to injure innocent people well outside the area of the shooting.

A study performed by the NYPD found the same thing and validated the findings of the NJ State Police, that the use of full metal jacket style ammunition was much more likely to result in the unintended injury of innocent bystanders due to the ability of the round to strike its intended target, generally retain its shape and energy, pass through the target and continue on its path to strike something else.

As opposed to a hollow point bullet whose design ensures that upon impact it expands and deposits its energy in its original target, thereby becoming significantly less likely to hurt or kill an innocent bystander.

The New Jersey Legislature cannot have it both ways.
They can either admit that if they truly believe that hollow point style ammunition actually is “extra lethal“ and all the other assorted, overheated adjectives they use to describe them, and their approved use against criminals then certainly seems like a clear cut case of “extra judicious“ force.

Or they can simply admit they made a mistake, take responsibility for it and fix it by treating hollow point ammunition just like any other bullet.

More articles, commentary and information by Dan Robert available at That Every Man Be Armed.com

Filed under: Ammunition News, Gun Rights News by DRoberts No Comments »

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- The New Jersey Appellate Division decided two cases this week in support of fair treatment for those who received mental health care, but who no longer suffer from such disabilities in such a manner that would handicap them in the safe handling of firearms.

The law firm of Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law PC of Eatontown, New Jersey, (www.evannappen.com) represented both of these appellants.

Both cases were partially funded by the NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund.

IN RE M.L., PETITIONER FOR EXPUNGEMENT
Two years ago, M.L., a retired law enforcement officer with over 25 years of service, suffered from a bout of depression, from which he had significantly improved. He voluntarily admitted himself to a mental health facility and, thereafter, received outpatient treatment. He sought to have his voluntary commitment records expunged to relieve the stigma associated with his hospital stay and to help him gain employment as a security guard. M.L.’s treating doctor testified that M.L. was presently of sound mental health. Despite the above, the trial court denied the petition.

Louis P. Nappen, Esq., appeared on behalf of M.L. both at the trial court and on appeal. On appeal, Mr. Nappen argued that the Ocean County Trial Court erred in applying the wrong standard of review and in failing to conclude M.L. met all requirements for expungement under the statute. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that “the trial court’s opinion appeared to ignore the provisions of the statute” and that “the denial of expungement premised upon a possible future weapons application is erroneous.”

It was clear that the petitioner received unfair treatment from the trial judge, and on February 8, the Appellate Division ordered, “”We conclude the trial court’s review was deficient as it failed to comply with the requisites of the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the October 15, 2010 order and remand the matter for consideration by a different Law Division judge[.]“

When asked about the decision, Attorney Nappen stated, “Basically, the judge refused to apply the statute to the facts of the case, but instead promoted an anti-gun agenda. I am glad that the Appellate Division saw the unfairness of the situation.”

This decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1499-10.pdf .

IN RE WEAPONS OF A.S.
Following a dismissed temporary restraining order (regarding which the wife’s allegation could not be proven), the State moved to forfeit A.S.’s firearms that were seized in accordance with the temporary order.  Firearms were not involved in any way in his wife’s allegations of domestic violence. A.S. has no criminal record or other absolute bars to firearm possession.

Despite the above, the prosecutor insisted on a mental health evaluation based on information provided by the wife that A.S had threatened and attempted suicide in the past. Appellant testified that he has suffered from chronic back pain since 1997, and he has also been diagnosed with depression. Appellant testified that he had been under the care of psychiatrists.

At the hearing, A.S. presented a doctor’s letter in response to the prosecutor’s demand that attested to A.S.’s present mental health stability. Despite the doctor’s letter, the trial court granted the State’s petition for forfeiture.

The defendant appeared pro se at the Sussex County Trial Court, but hired Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law, PC for the appeal. Louis P. Nappen, Esq., argued the appeal for the firm.

On February 6, the Appellate Division found that the appellant was misled at the trial court level. “He should not have been deprived of fair notice that the State would not accept [his doctor’s] letter as satisfying the statutory requirement.”

The Court stated, “Over appellant’s earlier objections, the court had granted two adjournments to the State to prepare its case. It should also have granted a continuance of the hearing to appellant to seek more evidence of his mental fitness.” Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter to reopen the hearing and permit A.S. to present additional evidence of his fitness to possess his firearms.

This decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3192-10.pdf .

The above decisions also mirror the Appellate Division decision in State v. Pyskaty, July 8, 2011, where the Court reversed a Monmouth County trial court that refused to consider a doctor’s written evaluation in support of the return of firearms and firearm rights. The Pyskaty case was argued by Richard V. Gilbert, Esq., also of the Nappen Firm, and is available at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a3742-09.opn.html.

When asked about the A.S. and M.L. appeals, Attorney Nappen commented, “These victories do not just support firearm rights, but also civil rights for those who face unfair treatment by the courts or by the state as a result of seeking mental health treatment. The Appellate decisions send a message that judges should stop discouraging people from seeking mental health counseling at the fear of losing their personal reputations and firearm rights.”

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland No Comments »