The gun was part of the man’s collection of 18th-century antiques.
Guns dot com
A retired teacher in Cumberland County, New Jersey, who was facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for a felony gun charge over a 300-year-old flintlock pistol has had the charges against him dropped, the county prosecutor announced Wednesday.
Police discovered 72-year-old Gordon Van Gilder had an antique gun wrapped in a cloth and tucked away in the glove box of his car when he was stopped for a minor traffic violation in November. The officer sent Van Gilder on his way, but the following day authorities showed up at his home with a warrant for his arrest because he did not have the proper paperwork for the antique gun.
Van Gilder was at risk of losing his retirement plan, which he had spent more than 30 years earning, if convicted.
But Van Gilder’s attorney, Evan Nappen, who specializes in gun cases and successfully represented Shaneen Allen, a single mother of two with a concealed carry permit who was facing similar charges after being pulled over in New Jersey last year, argued that the mid-1700s flintlock didn’t even fall under the legal definition of a firearm. But Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McCrae said in a statement, “The public should be forewarned about the prescriptions against possessing a firearm (even an antique) in a vehicle.
Nonetheless, after reviewing Van Gilder’s case, Webb-McCrae used her power of prosecutorial discretion to drop the charges against Van Gilder “in the interest of justice.”
Now, don't all the crybaby gun-rights fanatics feel silly? They should after all the alarmist nonsense they were spewing, even from the more fanatical among them the invented fact that he didn't get the gun back and that it probably became part of one of the policemen's collection.
And Guns dot com is not beyond throwing in some made-up shit from time to time, as we've seen before. What kind of pension stops coming if an elderly person is convicted of a felony?
Someone certainly seems to be making some money from this possibility. I personally don't get the logic, but we are talking about a state that was charging someone with felony possession of a three hundred year old item.
ReplyDeleteAs for the loss of the pistol, I would need to see it mentioned somewhere that he actually got it back. It's not unusual for government agencies to drag their feel regarding the return of property after dismissal of charges. And if you read the Prosecutor's statement, he wasn't exonerated, they just used their discretion to not proceed. And they state afterwards that it is still illegal.
"If you plead or are found guilty in NJ to any criminal or
disorderly persons charge either in municipal, superior, or
federal court you will be subject to the following 12 penalties:
(No Exceptions)
6. You may lose your job or pension: If you are a public employee of a government
agency, school teacher or an office holder, you can be required to forfeit your job,
pension or office by virtue of your plea of guilty."
http://www.getnotguilty.com/ConvictionCrime.html
" And they state afterwards that it is still illegal." I thought they determined the antique was not even considered a firearm under the law.
DeleteNo, that was Nappen's argument. The Prosecutor is still calling it one and is only excercising her discretion to drop charges.
DeleteI thought they determined the antique was not even considered a firearm under the law.
DeleteYou thought wrong, as I've already explained:
U.S. federal law does not [consider it a firearm], but in New Jersey, it's an "antique firearm":
"Antique firearm" means any firearm, which is incapable of being fired or discharged, or which does not fire fixed ammunition regardless of the date of manufacture, or was manufactured before 1898,for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available, and is possessed as a curiosity or ornament or for its historical significance or value.
"The flintlock is in the county's custody and Van Gilder plans to retrieve the gun."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/26/nj-prosecutor-drops-gun-charge-against-retired-teacher-over-centuries-old/
It does look like there's an expectation of getting it back. I hope it works out that way.
That's surprising, not only because of the usual habit of dragging feet when returning firearms. As you noted above, he wasn't exonerated, so the state could still proceed with an asset forfeiture against this gun as being connected to a crime. Good for them if they decided not to use that particular method of raping the Constitution.
DeleteYep, that's exactly what I expected to happen in this case, SJ.
DeleteMikeB: "Now, don't all the crybaby gun-rights fanatics feel silly?"
ReplyDeleteNot in the least. You don't think our "crying" and subsequent national attention had something to do with them dropping the case (just like Ms. Allen)?
OMG. You are such an egomaniac. Now you want to take credit for this one too?
DeleteHe was arrested in November. The prosecution dropped charges shortly after the NRA made and released a video and it made rounds on the internet. But that's just a coincidence, huh Mike? Why then did they press charges in the first place?
DeleteAs far as you calling me an egomaniac, I don't personally take any credit, as I am just a commentator. I credit those who made the content and distributed the information (ammoland, NRA, bloggers- including you).
It sounds like self-aggrandizing egomania, even though you included me.
DeleteAnd it still sounds "self-aggrandizing" to you even though I excluded myself? I guess I'm not surprised?
DeleteDid you feel silly about all your crybaby whining that Zimmerman was not charged with Martin's death during that time shortly after the shooting? He was eventually charged, so did you feel silly about your complaints? Or do you think those complaints may have had something to do with it?
ReplyDeleteAnother bizarre comparison. You're weird lately.
DeleteNow, don't all the crybaby gun-rights fanatics feel silly?|
ReplyDeletePerhaps they do, if they exist (I'm not convinced). I certainly don't. I'm still outraged about what he had to endure, the legal costs he incurred, and the seizure of his firearm.
. . . even from the more fanatical among them . . .
Who might they be?
. . . the invented fact . . .
Um, Mikeb? If an assertion is "invented," it's not a "fact," and vice versa.
. . . that he didn't get the gun back . . .
Are you claiming that he has gotten the gun back? When did that happen?
Granted, as SSG has found, apparently Mr. Van Gilder will get it back (but has not yet), after all. I'm quite pleased (pleasantly flabbergasted, really) to discover that I was wrong in my belief that he would not
You should feel silly, Kurt, not to mention hypocritical. You fleshed out the story with a bunch of made-up bullshit about his not getting the gun back. This is what you often (wrongly) accuse me of.
DeleteNice, gun loons are exempted from the law again.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that Sammy. In this case he seems to have been arrested, and spent a day in jail. Then incurr whatever indignities involved in that process.
DeleteHe did come out better than Shaneen Allen who spent over thirty days in jail.
Stuff your word dishonesty, the charges were dropped.
DeleteI know you gun loons hate the law and want laws eradicated, they have said so on this blog