New Jersey Gun laws may imprison resident for 7 years

[Scotteq]

I don't limit my information gathering to right-wing websites. I did a web search on this story and found information not contained in the OP's link.

*sigh* at trotting out the partisan flags... I'm an Independent. On the Fiscal side I'm Conservative, Socially I'm Libertarian.


My point is simple: The Judge has a responsibility to disclose the whole law. He didn't do that. Because of this, it's clearly arguable My Aitken's in prison for 7 years. This offends my Social Libertarian side, since there should have at least been full disclosure of the statutes.**

Here's a link to the relevant Attorney's filing for the Appellate Courts

(1) Mr Aiken is perfectly entitled to use his mother's house as an interim residence under both Federal and State law.

(2) Even the Police said he was moving personal belongings to his residence in Hoboken.

(3) The state failed to test the magazines, as is required by the statute. (and even so - the penalty for magazines is not nearly 7 years)




..Also the presiding Judge has been removed from the bench for misbehavior during other cases. There's a particularly good page out there about his presiding over a case of a police officer who engaged in bestiality.



**regarding your abortion argument: Like I said: I'm a Social Libertarian, and do not believe the Government has a right to restrict what we do with our bodies. A woman has every right to choose to be pregnant. And therefore she should equally have every right to chooses to become Un-pregnant.

 

[nick1985]

So we can assume Shira is happy with this ruling?

 

[Scotteq]

So we can assume Shira is happy with this ruling?

He said he doesn't agree with the sentence...



The difference here is Shira is of the position that the Judge is fully entitled to advise or withold whatever laws, exceptions, testimony, and evidence (S)He wishes to.

I disagree with that: My focus is that the Judge is responsible for fully explaining the laws and the exceptions - (especially in NJ, since Gun ownership and posession is only allowed via those exceptions), - so that the Jury may render a proper decision based on the Testimony and Evidence presented. That did not happen in this case, even when the Jury directly asked.


Not likely to be much agreement here, as the two positions are diametrically opposed.

 

[shira]

*sigh* at trotting out the partisan flags... I'm an Independent. On the Fiscal side I'm Conservative, Socially I'm Libertarian.


My point is simple: The Judge has a responsibility to disclose the whole law. He didn't do that. Because of this, it's clearly arguable My Aitken's in prison for 7 years. This offends my Social Libertarian side, since there should have at least been full disclosure of the statutes.**

Here's a link to Attorney's filing for the Appellate Courts

(1) Mr Aiken is perfectly entitled to use his mother's house as an interim residence under both Federal and State law.

But he WASN'T using his mother's house as an interim residence (he was already living in Hoboken), and his guns weren't kept there.

(2) Even the Police said he was moving personal belongings to his residence in Hoboken.

He was moving personal belongings he'd picked up at his mother's, but he wasn't moving his guns. Don't confuse the two issues.

(3) The state failed to test the magazines, as is required by the statute.

THIS is a statement of fact. If indeed what you're saying is true, then presumably this would have been presented during a trial. There's nothing in the articles I've seen about the judge blocking testimony on whether or not or in what way the state tested magazines. And if what you say is true AND relevant, then why did the jury convict Aitken on the high-capacity magazine charge?

..Also the presiding Judge has been removed from the bench for misbehavior during other cases. There's a particularly good page out there about his presiding over a case of a police officer who engaged in bestiality.

**regarding your abortion argument: Like I said: I'm a Social Libertarian, and do not believe the Government has a right to restrict what we do with our bodies. A woman has every right to choose to be pregnant. And therefore she should equally have every right to chooses to become Un-pregnant.

The judge may or may not have been incompetent in the Aitken case - the judge was fired for his actions in two other cases. If the judge engaged in malfeasance during the Aitken case, then the defense has a good argument to get a new trial. Considering that I feel Aitken's sentence does not remotely fit the crime, I do hope he gets a new trial OR the governor pardons him or commutes his sentence.

 

[Scotteq]

Thanks for responding: Now think about how your response would have changed had you actually read the appellate brief I linked.


This is the last I have on this topic, since you clearly have no intention of discussing the matter rationally.

 

[classy]

That's pretty messed up. He was clearly moving between residences and as such is not guilty of a crime in NJ. This should absolutely get tossed out on appeal. Those "screwed up gun states" really suck. NY, NJ, CA, IL, MA

Well after reading the whole story, he was moving, but at the time there should have been no reason to still have the weapons in his car. Further the whole thing with his wife makes the fact he had them even more questionable. While this is a miscarriage of justice, he did violate the law.

 

[nick1985]

he did violate the unconstitutional law.

agreed

 

[WackyDan]

He wasn't moving. He was already in NJ. While he did take some important first steps in moving his guns to NJ, he neglected one important one... Having a licensed firearm dealer impound his firearms voluntarily while he legalized his ownership of said firearms in new Jersey. The dealer would charge a small fee for the process.

People are stupid. The best place to call for advice on moving with firearms is indeed the local sheriff's office, but more importantly, a large reputable local firearm dealer.

 

[Wordplay]

He's a Divorcee, and working guy. He doesn't have the kind of money it takes to pursue it that far.

So who's going to fight for the guy? The ACLU!?!? Not going to happen for the reason I already linked above.

At best - The Appellate can find grounds to overturn the verdict, and either dismiss the charges or (more likely) send Mr. Aitken back to the courts for round #2.

It is sad that one cannot fight for their rights without being a millionaire.

 

[spidey07]

It is sad that one cannot fight for their rights without being a millionaire.

Lawsuit against NJ for unconstitutional gun laws. The second amendment foundation (SAF) is on a freaking roll. Remember, the right to keep and bear arms is now a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT.

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=346

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and six private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a “justifiable need.” One of the plaintiffs is a kidnap victim, another is a part-time sheriff’s deputy, a third carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David D. Jensen and Robert P. Firriolo with the firm of Duane Morris, LLP in Newark.

 

[PJABBER]

Time to make a contribution to SAF. The NRA does their thing, but SAF has been picking up the slack.

 

[spidey07]

Time to make a contribution to SAF. The NRA does their thing, but SAF has been picking up the slack.

Yep, they're doing all the right things. Do what you can.

 

[PJABBER]

Yep, they're doing all the right things. Do what you can.

I think I am also going to get my wife a subscription to Women & Guns for Christmas. She will get a kick out of that.

 

[spidey07]

Released. That awesome Governor Christie gave clemency.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html

 

[MotF Bane]

:thumbsup:

 

[rudder]

Shame that the judge that tried the case can't be put on trial himself. Seven years for a gun violation.... murderers serve less time. The asshat judge was trying to make point apparently.

Anyway, good job Governor.

 

[techs]

exactly why I'm not even trying to take my guns to MA. Sad but at least I know if the gubment tries to take over Texans will take care of business.

Yeah, right.
When the Army comes with automatic weapons, LAWS and armored vehicles and the offer of either getting your head blown off or amnesty for turning in your guns, 99.9999 percent of the people will turn in their guns.

Its just nuts to say you have a gun to keep the gubmint from taking over.
Apparently the South couldn't do it with a whole army. Yet, some hilbilly with a gun will stop the "gubmint"

There are far stronger cases to be made for the right to have a gun. This one is almost ludicrous.

 

[Cstefan]

Yeah, right.
When the Army comes with automatic weapons, LAWS and armored vehicles and the offer of either getting your head blown off or amnesty for turning in your guns, 99.9999 percent of the people will turn in their guns.

Dude, knowing that there can be a shot fired from over a mile away and take my head clean off through armor, the army can HAVE my piddly firearms. If the gubmint and military turned on the populace, you can pretty much call it a day. We are done.

And on the story's update: Judge fired, rather stupid, but not 7 years stupid guy released. Justice is served I guess.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Released. That awesome Governor Christie gave clemency.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html

good move by the governor.

:thumbsup:

innocent men dont deserve prison

 

[irishScott]

Yeah, right.
When the Army comes with automatic weapons, LAWS and armored vehicles and the offer of either getting your head blown off or amnesty for turning in your guns, 99.9999 percent of the people will turn in their guns.

Its just nuts to say you have a gun to keep the gubmint from taking over.
Apparently the South couldn't do it with a whole army. Yet, some hilbilly with a gun will stop the "gubmint"

There are far stronger cases to be made for the right to have a gun. This one is almost ludicrous.

It wouldn't be a matter of military superiority, it would be a matter of numbers. If half the country decided to rebel again, I seriously doubt the military would be up to covering the sheer amount of territory and people required to curtail it. Not to mention I seriously doubt the politicians in Washington are capable of ordering the brutal actions (ie: Sherman's march) necessary to curtail such a rebellion, nor would the people supporting said government maintain their support when videos of any such slaughter appear on youtube.

In any case, the next rebellion (in the extremely unlikely event it occurs) wouldn't be about battles and armies, it would be about numbers, dispersion and persistence. Hell we can't even eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan. What makes you think our military could eliminate an insurgency made up of people whom they not only don't want to kill, but can blend perfectly into the local populace, across an area many times the size of Afghanistan? Let alone if part of the military sides with the rebels.

Granted I don't see the American populace having the guts for an effective guerrilla war short of impossibly extreme circumstances, not do I think even a small-scale rebellion has any real chance of occurring in the next century. Just pointing out that despite it's military might, the US military could be effectively neutralized by a massive dispersed guerrilla campaign which, in theory, could be conducted by private citizens with guns furnished to them under the 2nd amendment. Take away that amendment and no such rebellion is even remotely possible.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's great that he's not serving time anymore, but the cummuting of his sentance doesn't absolve him of the crime. He is still a convicted felon and thus can no longer legally own a firearm per federal law.
So in essence, he has lost his rights. He will have to check that he is a convicted felon when asked on any employment applications which will most likely be grounds for him not getting hired, especially since anyone that would hire him will now see that he is/was a gun owner and many people would not hire him (especially in NJ) because of his stance on guns.

 

[bfdd]

Yeah, right.
When the Army comes with automatic weapons, LAWS and armored vehicles and the offer of either getting your head blown off or amnesty for turning in your guns, 99.9999 percent of the people will turn in their guns.

Its just nuts to say you have a gun to keep the gubmint from taking over.
Apparently the South couldn't do it with a whole army. Yet, some hilbilly with a gun will stop the "gubmint"

There are far stronger cases to be made for the right to have a gun. This one is almost ludicrous.

Why do you think the military would move on civies like that and what makes you think dying with a gun in your hand is any worse than living a life with lips attached to someones ass? I'd rather be dead than slobbering on someones ass all day.

 

[spidey07]

Apparently the judge bullied the jury into the conviction. How is that not a crime?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/23/freed-new-jersey-man-wants-gun-conviction-overturned/

A New Jersey man whose seven-year prison sentence was commuted this week and is now seeking to get his felony gun charge conviction overturned blamed judicial "bullying" for his guilty verdict.

Brian Aitken told Fox News on Thursday that he is armed with an e-mail he claims he received earlier this week from a juror who told him that then-Superior Court Judge James Morley pushed the jury into obtaining a conviction.

"Interestingly enough, I got an e-mail from one of the jurors a night or two ago, and he told me, 'You know, we all pretty much knew what was going on. We knew the judge was bullying us to this position. That's why we came back three times and asked for the exemptions,'" Aitken said


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/2...ants-gun-conviction-overturned/#ixzz18xMO8mf1

 

[irishScott]

It's great that he's not serving time anymore, but the cummuting of his sentance doesn't absolve him of the crime. He is still a convicted felon and thus can no longer legally own a firearm per federal law.
So in essence, he has lost his rights. He will have to check that he is a convicted felon when asked on any employment applications which will most likely be grounds for him not getting hired, especially since anyone that would hire him will now see that he is/was a gun owner and many people would not hire him (especially in NJ) because of his stance on guns.

Can't they still appeal the decision? Given the way the wind's blowing I imagine they could get him exonerated.

Also, IIRC he doesn't live in Jersey.

 

[Scotteq]

Can't they still appeal the decision? Given the way the wind's blowing I imagine they could get him exonerated.

Also, IIRC he doesn't live in Jersey.

He does now - He moved back to NJ from Colorado, was using his mother's residence temporarily as he established a new residence in Hoboken and he had belongings in both places. And I wouldn't blame him if he moved back out.

I linked the appeal earlier: http://briandaitken.com/content/2010/11/Brian-Aitken-Summary-of-Facts.pdf