New Jersey Section 2C:43-6.1 – Person under minimum mandatory sentence for possession of firearm with intent to use against property of another; review of sentence; imposition of other sentence

New Jersey’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Law for Firearm Possession: An Overview

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including mandatory minimum sentencing for certain firearm offenses. One such law is Section 2C:43-6.1, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a firearm with intent to use it against another person’s property.

Overview of NJ Section 2C:43-6.1

Section 2C:43-6.1 specifically deals with mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a firearm with intent to use it against another person’s property[1]. This statute was enacted in 1981.

Here are some key provisions of 2C:43-6.1:

• It applies to persons convicted under 2C:39-4(a) for possessing a firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against the property of another[2].
• The mandatory minimum sentence is 3 years in state prison without parole[3].
• The law requires this 3-year mandatory minimum even if the firearm was not actually used in a crime. Just the intent to use it illegally against property triggers the mandatory term.
• The sentencing judge has no discretion to impose a lower sentence than 3 years or waive the parole ineligibility period.

History and Context of 2C:43-6.1

New Jersey adopted its sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws in 1981 as part of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act. This law enacted harsh mandatory minimum prison terms for various drug offenses and violent crimes[4].

The mandatory 3-year term under 2C:43-6.1 for possessing a firearm with intent to use against property was part of this tough-on-crime agenda. Proponents argued it would deter gun violence and the use of firearms to threaten or harm property.

However, there has been increasing criticism of mandatory minimum sentences as overly harsh and inflexible. Opponents argue they have not effectively reduced crime and have led to excessive imprisonment, especially in communities of color[5].

There is also concern mandatory minimums have shifted power from judges to prosecutors, who decide what charges to pursue carrying mandatory terms.

Constitutional Challenges

Section 2C:43-6.1 and other mandatory sentencing laws have faced constitutional challenges, but courts have largely upheld them.

In State v. Des Marets, the NJ Supreme Court upheld mandatory minimum sentencing laws against claims they violated the separation of powers doctrine by limiting judicial discretion.

Mandatory minimums have also survived challenges arguing they violate prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment or due process rights. Courts have found they are not grossly disproportionate punishments.

However, there are still ongoing legal and legislative efforts to reform mandatory sentencing laws in New Jersey and nationally.

Implications of 2C:43-6.1 Today

Section 2C:43-6.1 remains in effect today. Individuals convicted of possessing firearms with intent to use unlawfully against property still face a mandatory 3-year state prison term without parole.

This law continues to have significant implications for defendants and the criminal justice system:

• Defendants face a harsh mandatory sentence, even for simply possessing a firearm they intended to use illegally against property.
• The law limits judicial discretion to consider mitigating factors like a defendant’s youth, minimal criminal history, or circumstances of the offense.
• It contributes to lengthy incarceration and its collateral consequences for individuals, families, and communities.
• Prosecutors can use the mandatory penalty as leverage in plea negotiations.

Critics argue the mandatory sentence is disproportionate and ineffective policy. But legislative reforms have stalled, and the law remains firmly entrenched in New Jersey’s criminal code today.