New Jersey Gun laws may imprison resident for 7 years

[spidey07]

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.

The Second Amendment Foundation would be glad to take up his case to declare NJ's law unconstitutional.

http://www.saf.org/

 

[Scotteq]

Possible - But understand that NJ's State Constitution includes no protections concerning firearms. So it's either a SCOTUS case, or nothing.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Regardless of whether or not he violated the law, the fact remains that the law is broken when someone gets 7 years in prison for possessing a firearm without intent to commit another crime.

 

[Scotteq]

Regardless of whether or not he violated the law, the fact remains that the law is broken when someone gets 7 years in prison for possessing a firearm without intent to commit another crime.

Actually - Illegal Posession of a Firearm in NJ really is a 5~10 year sentence, regardless of any presence/lack of intent to commit any act. So the sentence itself is consistent with the law. And, as everyone can plainly see, the courts are not hesitant about handing those sentences out.

Obviously, there are reasons and exemptions (such as moving house) which one can use as an affirmative defense.

What happened here is the Judge (allegedly) disallowed the exemptions from being applied, and didn't inform the Jury what those exemptions were - even when questioned by the Jury. Further, the Judge also disallowed evidence of Mr Aiken's efforts to comply with the laws (conversation with State Police and printouts of the applicable regulation) from being presented at trial. In essence - Stripping Mr Aikens of his defense and forcing a conviction where the Jury weren't comfortable rendering one.


Quote from the OP's article:

To buy a gun in New Jersey, you must go through a laborious process to obtain a "purchaser's permit." But that permit doesn't entitle you to possess a gun. A few select groups of people, mostly off-duty police officers and security personnel, can obtain carry permits. But anyone else with a gun is presumed to be violating state law and must defend against the charge of illegal gun possession by claiming one of the state's exemptions.

Evan Nappen, who is representing Aitken in his appeal, likens the process to claiming self-defense in a murder case. "If you kill someone because they're about to kill you first," he says, "you're still guilty of homicide. You have to prove you should be granted the exception for self-defense. It's the same thing for just about all New Jersey gun owners. You're guilty until you prove that you're innocent.”

The exemptions allow New Jersey residents to have guns in their homes, while hunting or at a shooting range, while traveling to or from hunting grounds or a shooting range, and when traveling between residences. Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Actually - Illegal Posession of a Firearm in NJ really is a 5~10 year sentence, regardless of any presence/lack of intent to commit any act. So the sentence itself is consistent with the law. And, as everyone can plainly see, the courts are not hesitant about handing those sentences out.

Obviously, there are reasons and exemptions (such as moving house) which one can use as an affirmative defense.

What happened here is the Judge (allegedly) disallowed the exemptions from being applied, and didn't inform the Jury what those exemptions were - even when questioned by the Jury. Further, the Judge also disallowed evidence of Mr Aiken's efforts to comply with the laws (conversation with State Police and printouts of the applicable regulation) from being presented at trial. In essence - Stripping My Aikens of his defense and forcing a conviction where the Jury weren't comfortable rendering one.

Quote from the OP's article:

What I'm saying is that the law shouldn't exist. I'm sure they already have a tack-on sentence for using a gun in the commission of a crime. Making criminals out of people like this guy doesn't do anything to protect the community.

 

[Scotteq]

What I'm saying is that the law shouldn't exist. I'm sure they already have a tack-on sentence for using a gun in the commission of a crime. Making criminals out of people like this guy doesn't do anything to protect the community.

I don't agree with the law, either - But unfortunately a couple years ago, Former Governor Corzine chose to make the penalties for simple posession the same as the penalties for possession while commiting a criminal act. Yes - You heard me right: In NJ, Legally, the penalty for simple posession is exactly the same as if you had used that weapon to commit a crime. Add in antagonist Police (they do NOT like gun owners here), a jackass Judge (we have LOTS of those), and now you have otherwise law abiding citizens going to prison.

http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/nj.htm

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html

 

[piasabird]

New Jersey is a police state.

Remind me never to go there.

 

[bruceb]

This should be sent on to the NRA .. they will either fight it themselves or get him in touch with a good attorney. There is no way he should have been convicted based on the actual circumstances. He has a valid Federal Firearms ID Card. In NJ you only need a Permit To Purchase A Handgun, in addition to the Federal ID Card. Since he is not Purchasing, and is not Carrying the Gun, no additional permits should be needed. But, he may have to Register the pistols with the local or State police dept.

 

[brencat]

Hopefully the NRA will take up this case -- patently unfair the punishment.

But I want to make a point here...I live in NJ and own firearms. The law is very clear about only having guns in your car (unloaded, separated from the ammo) when going to and from the shooting range. If it is true that he was keeping handguns in his trunk for a couple days, or week, or 2 weeks, that is a clear violation of NJ law. Because if his car God forbid were ever stolen or broken into, that means additional guns on the street in criminal hands.

I would like to think there is some grey area here given he was moving, but like I said, you are allowed to go to and from the shooting range and that's it. When I go shooting, I don't stop at the supermarket on the way home or dare leave my car with them in it. The guns go shoot, then they come directly home. Period.

 

[nick1985]

Rudder: The ACLU no longer takes up cases for causes they don't believe in. And they most assuredly do NOT believe in an individual's rights to posess firearms, but rather feel that gun possession is not a Civil Liberties issue at all. Their position, specifically: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

See sig

 

[Scotteq]

Sig??

...lame as the day it was written

 

[rudder]

New Jersey is a police state.

Remind me never to go there.

The stupid thing is New jersey lets criminals out early because they are trying to cut state expenses.

the tax bill alone to convict this guy is pretty expensive I bet. Fine him, take away his license, maybe probation, and be done with it.

 

[Scotteq]

New Jersey is a police state.

Remind me never to go there.

Competing for the Highest Tax burden in the country: You'd love it here!

 

[shira]

While it's probable that the guy was violating state law, it wasn't up to the judge to make that finding and then force a finding of guilty out of the jury because he gave them no other option.

Didn't you know that the right wants judges to just INTERPRET the law and not make law from the bench? (Unless, of course, the law in question limits behavior that the right thinks should be unrestricted, in which case judges MUST do everything in their power to overrule laws passed by legally elected and legally constituted legislatures; and if they don't legislate from the bench, those judges must be run out of town on a rail.)

The right is very principled.

 

[Scotteq]

Perhaps you would like to take a stab at explaining why a sitting Judge would disallow the exemptions included in the law - to the point of refusing to tell the Jury they exist even when the Jury asked directly?

The exemptions allow New Jersey residents to have guns in their homes, while hunting or at a shooting range, while traveling to or from hunting grounds or a shooting range, and when traveling between residences. Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

I don't have a problem with Judges making law. But I have a BIG problem with Judges picking and choosing what pieces of a particular law may and which pieces may not, be read to a Jury. Especially when said picking and choosing influences the outcome of a criminal case. If the statute applies, the Jury should be provided with the ENTIRE statute. Not just bits and pieces.

 

[shira]

PI don't have a problem with Judges making law. But I have a BIG problem with Judges picking and choosing what pieces of a particular law may and which pieces may not, be read to a Jury. Especially when said picking and choosing influences the outcome of a criminal case. If the statute applies, the Jury should be provided with the ENTIRE statute. Not just bits and pieces.

Judges allow or disallow testimony and evidence all the time. In the present case, the "moving between residences" exemption applies to people who are engaged in the act of transporting possessions from one residence to another. It was pretty clearly established that Aitken was NOT doing that: He was driving around with possessions and had removed the handguns from the apartment in which he was temporarily living because a party was going on there; he wasn't taking those possessions to a new residence.

A judge is SUPPOSED to determine which evidence is relevant to a case. A judge doesn't let either the defense or the prosecution throw all kinds of shit against the wall, hoping that some of it will stick to confused jurors.

Note also the Aitken was also convicted of possessing high-capacity magazines, which are illegal in NJ under all circumstances - there's no "exemption" from that charge.

Now, if Aitken was clearly unjustly convicted, presumably the NJ governor will see it that way too, and pardon him. If the governor doesn't see it that way, then perhaps there's more to this case than a right-wing, pro-gun website is presenting.

 

[Nebor]

Note also the Aitken was also convicted of possessing high-capacity magazines, which are illegal in NJ under all circumstances - there's no "exemption" from that charge.

Good point. They don't have a single reasonable firearm law in New Jersey.

He must have some of those magazines that say "For Military And Law Enforcement Use Only" left over from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Unmarked high capacity magazines can't be proven illegal since they might have been in the jurisdiction prior to the law changing.

 

[Scotteq]

Judges allow or disallow testimony and evidence all the time. In the present case, the "moving between residences" exemption applies to people who are engaged in the act of transporting possessions from one residence to another. It was pretty clearly established that Aitken was NOT doing that: He was driving around with possessions and had removed the handguns from the apartment in which he was temporarily living because a party was going on there; he wasn't taking those possessions to a new residence..

The exemptions allow New Jersey residents to have guns in their homes, while hunting or at a shooting range, while traveling to or from hunting grounds or a shooting range, and when traveling between residences. Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

I say there was sufficient TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE that he was. And yet the Judge disallowed the Jury being informed of the exception included in the LAW. That's the problem: He allowed the testimony. But did not inform the Jury of the Law.

Also - The story makes no mention of any magazines - high capacity or not.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Rudder: The ACLU no longer takes up cases for causes they don't believe in. And they most assuredly do NOT believe in an individual's rights to posess firearms, but rather feel that gun possession is not a Civil Liberties issue at all. Their position, specifically: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

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

Sloppy thinking. The Second Amendment says nothing about a judge's instructions to a jury.

The link you posted says the ACLU takes no stance on gun possession or gun regulation. It does not say it takes no stance on fair trials.
A claim that a trial which happened to be about guns violated the the defendant's civil right to a fair trial is not a claim that the defendant had a civil right to gun ownership. Those are completely different arguments.

 

[pcgeek11]

The only thing he did wrong ( stupid ) was to let the police search his car without cause or a warrant. Oh the first stupid thing was moving to New Jersey. They don't even let you pump your own gas there. Must be trying to catch up with California.

 

[shira]

I say there was sufficient TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE that he was. And yet the Judge disallowed the Jury being informed of the exception included in the LAW. That's the problem: He allowed the testimony. But did not inform the Jury of the Law.

Also - The story makes no mention of any magazines - high capacity or not.

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.

Aitken has already taken possession of an apartment in Hoboken at the time of the incident in January, 2009, and had taken the guns from Colorado in December, 2008. His mother's house was NOT his residence, so it would not have been legal for him to keep his guns there.

Right there is proof positive that he was NOT engaged in the act of moving the guns between two of his residences. Taking the guns directly from Colorado to Hoboken would have constituted "moving the guns between residences." In fact, there is some information in the stories I've read that Brian REMOVED the guns from the Hoboken apartment and placed them in the trunk of his car because there was a party at the Hoboken apartment. Thus, Brian was driving around with the guns in this car as a temporary storage solution.

So the claim that he was transporting guns between residences at the time of his arrest was patently false, and the judge recognized that fact.

Now, do I think that Aitken's actions deserve 7 years in prison? Of course not. But I don't think anyone deserves a life sentence for possessing an ounce of marijuana, either; yet there are laws like that on the books in our more backward states.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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.

Aitken has already taken possession of an apartment in Hoboken at the time of the incident in January, 2009, and had taken the guns from Colorado in December, 2008. His mother's house was NOT his residence, so it would not have been legal for him to keep his guns there.

Right there is proof positive that he was NOT engaged in the act of moving the guns between two of his residences. Taking the guns directly from Colorado to Hoboken would have constituted "moving the guns between residences." In fact, there is some information in the stories I've read that Brian REMOVED the guns from the Hoboken apartment and placed them in the trunk of his car because there was a party at the Hoboken apartment. Thus, Brian was driving around with the guns in this car as a temporary storage solution.

So the claim that he was transporting guns between residences at the time of his arrest was patently false, and the judge recognized that fact.

Now, do I think that Aitken's actions deserve 7 years in prison? Of course not. But I don't think anyone deserves a life sentence for possessing an ounce of marijuana, either; yet there are laws like that on the books in our more backward states.

Like New Jersey?

 

[shira]

Like New Jersey?

With respect to handgun laws, yes, like New Jersey.

But you righties are big on Federalism, so you have no problem with each state creating its bizarre little laws. Or does that principle apply only when states make ultra-restrictive anti-abortion laws?

 

[Scotteq]

Sloppy thinking. The Second Amendment says nothing about a judge's instructions to a jury.

The link you posted says the ACLU takes no stance on gun possession or gun regulation. It does not say it takes no stance on fair trials.
A claim that a trial which happened to be about guns violated the the defendant's civil right to a fair trial is not a claim that the defendant had a civil right to gun ownership. Those are completely different arguments.

Actually - Sloppy thinking on your part: I was responding to Rudder's post, not claiming the Second Amendment. But thank you for the attempt, anyhow.

 

[disappoint]

lol Joisey:
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/11/the-secret-sauce-behind-bloated-state-pensions.html