rights violated or not??

[KpdPipes 388]

 

Kudos to you Kpd, I wish more cops had your attitude.

Despite what some here would have you believe MOST of the "Badged Up Morons" (as we're known to some on this forum) I call my brothers DONT have a problem with Joe Citizen having or even carrying Firearms. YES there are some who are anti-gun. Yes there are some who are Vehemently pro-gun, and yes there is (Probably the majority) who are pretty much neutral about it and arent looking to take anything away from anyone. Show me ONE Group of people taken from the general population that doesnt have people of ALL political bents. Police Magazine did a Survey a while back and it showed that Nationally, 87+% of Sworn officers were OPPOSED TO GUN CONTROL, and a Majority also said they would not participate in Confiscations if ordered to do so. sadly not quite as high a percentage, but still well over half (IIRC around 67%). Now im CERTAIN that someone will trot out Katrina before this goes too much further. NJ LEO's in New Orleans took exactly ONE firearm off of an individual. THAT individual was Heavily intoxicated, had been thrown out of (One of the few open) a bar, and had gotten his gun and "Went back to teach them a lesson". he was arrested for Violating Louisiana State law, and turned over to NOPD on the scene. Yes other firearms were ssecured, but that was after the Search and Rescue teams had breached flooded, damaged homes looking for Bodies/casualties and the homes could not be secured. Those guns were turned over to La State Patrol, NOT NOPD, under the same evidence chains and forms we used here, with the addresses they were recovered from so they COULD be returned to the owners. YES THERE WERE ABUSES, but far less than some would have you believe...just as if you listen to the MSM idiots, people STILL believe there were mass rapes and killings in the Superdome..there werent.

So just so everyone is Clear. I HAVE NO PROBLEM with CCW becoming a reality here in NJ. I would be HAPPY to see it. I would be HAPPY to see the Castle Doctrine we have adjusted to be more clear, and include Immunity from Civil prosecution for justified Self/Home-Defense situations. The reality is, without a sea change in the population, without which there will be NO change in the Legislature, ANYTHING we get will be a hard-won fight. They will give us NOTHING. the only way possible is if someone in the Justice Department, or the Federal Courts System, prosecutes someplace like DC or Chicago for Violating Civil Rights with their Shennanigans post Heller and McDonald...and with Eric Holder in charge of the DOJ, I think that's about as likely as those ponies and Rainbows I mentuimentioned before

[FFDP82 4]

KPD, you are aware the legislature will not change things, so then why do you not support this guy? Is this not an excellent test case for NJ's blanket ban on not being able to have a handgun outside the house unless under a few narrowly defined exceptions? Circumstances aside, he was not arrested for anything besides the unloaded locked handgun in his car while not on the way to a range/gun shop/hunting/home and without that bogus, unconstitutional law, he'd not be facing prison time right now. I'm not flaming you now, now that you've explained yourself I have a little better of an idea of who you are and am interested in your thoughts.

 

Parker: It doesn't matter how much of an idiot this guy is, the law that may send him to prison is unconstitutional. I'm not really keen on putting people in prison because Parker's grandma would consider them" a blithering idiot" - that's not justice. It actually scares me that people on here of all places, are A-O-K with a guy going to prison for having a locked, unloaded gun in his vehicle 100 feet away because someone felt like "screwing him" and told the cops. I think our jails ought to be filled with people who use guns to shoot people or rob banks, not people who leave them locked and cased in their vehicle. But then again, that's an uncommon opinion around here I guess.

 

Speaking of British grandmas, isn't that the same country that is now banning starter pistols and antique replicas, has kitchen knives locked up in the stores, and is putting people in prison for defending their homes from armed, violent attackers? The same country that has to have their Olympic pistol team practice in a different country because all handguns are illegal? No offense, but I don't consider a British person's opinion very useful when it comes to weapons.

 

The bottom line:

I doubt anyone would be laughing if they somehow found themselves facing felony prison time because they got into a car accident in a Burger King parking lot after the range and a judge decided to define for them what "reasonable deviation" means.

 

Think that can't happen to you?

[bulpup 98]

It is unfair to ask Pipes to explain NJ law vs the Constitution because they are unexplainable by anyone.

 

What (I believe) he was trying to say was that the man in question may not have been doing "absolutely nothing wrong." People saw the weapon. So NJlaw, The constitution yadda yadda is still as valid a point as ever, but the story has indications that the guy may not be squeeky clean. Someone saw the weapon. Even if it WAS the ex-wife, wouldn't that be enough? A gun to a custody hearing?

 

 

It is important to see and note things like that. Not that it is enough to make a judgement in anyway, - especially if you are there for a domestic issue such as child custody. In the age of "if you see something, say something" this is not a surprise.

[KpdPipes 388]

KPD, you are aware the legislature will not change things, so then why do you not support this guy? Is this not an excellent test case for NJ's blanket ban on not being able to have a handgun outside the house unless under a few narrowly defined exceptions? Circumstances aside, he was not arrested for anything besides the unloaded locked handgun in his car while not on the way to a range/gun shop/hunting/home and without that bogus, unconstitutional law, he'd not be facing prison time right now. I'm not flaming you now, now that you've explained yourself I have a little better of an idea of who you are and am interested in your thoughts.

 

Again..please show me where I said he DESERVES to be in this predicament..what I SAID was that his own Stupidity, either by telling someone he had the firearm, Or by allowing someone to see it, put him in that position. There isnt a Crystal ball in the Sheriff's Office that said "Hey that dude has a gun in his bike 100 feet away from our building". Is the Law Bogus? yeah it is..Is it Unconstitutional? THAT will have to be determined by the courts. I feel badly for the guy..Don't get me wrong, but frankly only Middling so as all it would have teken was 1/2 hour of research for him to find out that THAT action would have been a VERY bad idea. LONG before I was a Cop, and once I was before LEOSA went into effect, ANYTIME I traveled with a firearm, I made SURE of the applicable laws where I was going to, either from reasearch at a library, or calling a PD in that area and asking them. I used to travel to Ma on an almost weekly basis..and i KNEW Not to carry a handgun up there, Cop or not. YES there is a much better chance of that law being changed, or being declared unconstitutional and tossed completely now with McDonald, and some of the other cases SAF is now going after. However, As it stands, HERE and NOW, he was in violation of NJSA 2C:39-5b Pure and simple. People on this and other boards have opined that we (LE in general) should just ignore statutes like this because of a percieved lack of constitutionality, or because the opiner disagrees with it because of a lack of "Fairness" or other such concepts... the problem lies with who get's to be the Arbiter of WHAT laws we should "ignore"?? I agree, and i have stated Publicly, here and on other boards, and in the real world that NJ's firearms laws are both repressive and poorly written, although frankly that can be said of probably 90% of the laws we are bound by in this state..this is what comes of a Body Writing Laws specifically to allow their friends (and themselves for the most part) "Wiggle Room" to attack those laws as Defense Attorneys..but THAT is an agrument for a different thread. YES We as Police Officers are afforded a certain amount of Discretion when it comes to how we do our jobs....but there is a HUGE Gulf between say, a Motor Vehicle Violation, or a Petty Disorderly Person's offense, and an Indictable Offense, and there our discretion is limited to the point that it is almost nonexistant..and that is not necessarily a BAD thing.

If YOU are the victim of a crime that is very valid to you, how are you going to feel about Me, the guy you called to help you blowing you off because "That's BS and a waste of my time??" An example I like to use is Date Rape. it is somewhat of an extreme example..but it does show how it's not as simple as people think. (And before the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I HAVE charged guys with this..No means NO, means FRIGGIN NO..right then and there..doesnt matter if your buried in, once the lady says "Stop" it's done..or you are) back to my example.. Your Daugther, Sister, Cousin, Friend, roommate, whatever, goes out on a date, things get a little heated, she decides that this is NOT the night, and the guy decides he isnt going to take "No for an answer.... NO Question that she was forced into an act of penetration, NO question that it qualifies under the Statute for Sexual Assault.

Now, the assign Detective Smith of the Anytown PD to handle this case HE thinks the entire concept of "Date rape" is bogus, and nonsense and if a girl doesnt want "The Bonus Plan' she shouldnt have put herself in that position to begin with. So, because he "Doesnt Beleive that that law is Valid" he blows her off, and basically says there is no crime here other than you getting yourself in over your head..sucks to be you lady dont waste our time. ASK YOURSELF...would you or would you not be looking to have that Cop's head on a Pike for blowing off that "Crime"?

Relativism sounds GREAT..until it's someone ELSE deciding what is or is not relevant, and it's YOU on the short end of the stick...which is why we have the Election process to change governments, and the Court System to address Injustices in the law. Is the system perfect?? not by a long shot, but it's Better than the alternative of Anarchy, or Dictatorship in the extremes. Do I WISH the Nj legislature took the McDonald Decision to heart like many other places did and changed things BEFORE it comes to a knife fight in the Courts?? Of Course I do..but I know better than to expect them to change something as Fundamental to an extremely Liberal group such as they are without a fight. just as we see the RKBA as a Fundamental RIGHT, they see CONTROL of firearms as Fundamental to THEIR way of life.

[kenw 293]

Yeah, the law sucks. It may even be unconstitutional, but "reasonable restrictions" and other such minutiae have yet to be defined. It should be changed, and it may.

 

It's the responsibility of the individual to know the law as it is now, not as you would like it to be. Any law. Every law. Ignorance isn't a defense. Disagreement isn't a defense.

 

The guy broke the law.

 

End of story.

 

Whether or not we agree with the law is completely irrelevant. We don't have the luxury of ignoring laws that we don't like. So, if you want to test the law by unloading your trunk full of guns in a BK parking lot on the way back from the range, go right ahead. The rest of us will continue obeying the laws that exist now, and make whatever effort we can to see them change.

 

It's irresponsible to come up on this board and imply that it's okay to ignore the laws as they are simply because you believe (and you may be right) that they're unconstitutional. When they're changed, it'll be different. Until then, the laws are the laws, and any time some yahoo breaks one of them, it makes the rest of the community, who by and large comply with the standing laws, look like a bunch of irresponsible jackasses, and it gives the antis (who haven't stopped their march on Trenton) more fuel for their gun control fires.

[bbk 188]

+1 to what kenw said. We strive to make amends, but we live within a rule of law.

[Parker 213]

+2 to what kenw said.

 

But I seriously doubt any laws will change for the better. That hasn't been the trend in this state. There has been a slow push, a "death by a thousand cuts" movement to alter gun freedom in New Jersey. How this started, I don't know specifically, but things evolved over time along with our changing times. Having hunted for a half century starting with my dad in his old DeSoto, I recall how guns were transported back then compared to today. I recall gun racks in his 1962 Plymouth station wagon (the original hunting vehicle before SUV's were in vogue) attached to the rear of the front seat. There were no cased gun laws during daylight hours during hunting season back then. In 1970 my high school (Don Bosco Prep) started a gun club. We shot at Thunder Mountain one weeknight a week in the Fall. We took our cased shotguns to school on the school buses and turned them in to the football coach in the morning who kept them locked in his office during the day. This was in 1970! Imagine something like this today? Guns in school? I recall the first item I bought for my pickup truck in 1978 was a set of gun racks. And I lived in Bergen County, not Sussex or Hunterdon county. Times have changed. While these are not comparable to transporting a handgun, it's interesting to see how things have evolved. Unless you have been living in a bubble, it's your responsiblity to know the laws. To ignore them is to suffer the consequences.

 

So much for my waxing about nostalgia and the good old days...............

[bulpup 98]

Again..please show me where I said he DESERVES to be in this predicament..what I SAID was that his own Stupidity, either by telling someone he had the firearm, Or by allowing someone to see it, put him in that position. There isnt a Crystal ball in the Sheriff's Office that said "Hey that dude has a gun in his bike 100 feet away from our building". Is the Law Bogus? yeah it is..Is it Unconstitutional? THAT will have to be determined by the courts. I feel badly for the guy..

<>

. YES We as Police Officers are afforded a certain amount of Discretion when it comes to how we do our jobs....but there is a HUGE Gulf between say, a Motor Vehicle Violation, or a Petty Disorderly Person's offense, and an Indictable Offense, and there our discretion is limited to the point that it is almost nonexistant..and that is not necessarily a BAD thing.

 

An NYPD sergeant told me one day quite clearly about this.

 

He said "if we really wanted to bust chops we could go up to any out of state truck with a sleeper cab and check it for weapons - but are we going to do that to every working guy sleeping in his truck overnight in New York City?"

[FFDP82 4]

Whether or not we agree with the law is completely irrelevant. We don't have the luxury of ignoring laws that we don't like. So, if you want to test the law by unloading your trunk full of guns in a BK parking lot on the way back from the range, go right ahead. The rest of us will continue obeying the laws that exist now, and make whatever effort we can to see them change.

 

It's irresponsible to come up on this board and imply that it's okay to ignore the laws as they are simply because you believe (and you may be right) that they're unconstitutional. When they're changed, it'll be different. Until then, the laws are the laws, and any time some yahoo breaks one of them, it makes the rest of the community, who by and large comply with the standing laws, look like a bunch of irresponsible jackasses, and it gives the antis (who haven't stopped their march on Trenton) more fuel for their gun control fires.

 

I am not in any way advocating breaking or ignoring any law. I used the restaurant example because many people are unaware just how easy it is to fall out of the exemption's narrow character and end up a felon.

 

He said "if we really wanted to bust chops we could go up to any out of state truck with a sleeper cab and check it for weapons - but are we going to do that to every working guy sleeping in his truck overnight in New York City?"

 

Has he never heard of the fourth amendment or something?

[ChrisJM981 924]

Wouldn't you check reciprocity laws with the state you are traveling to? I think it would come up with a big ole red flag if a Google search was done on NJ CCW laws. I know when I took my Utah class they mentioned checking local laws... If someone saw him take it out and put it in the saddle wouldn't they charge him with more than possession?

[kenw 293]

I am not in any way advocating breaking or ignoring any law. I used the restaurant example because many people are unaware just how easy it is to fall out of the exemption's narrow character and end up a felon.

 

 

 

Has he never heard of the fourth amendment or something?

As a lawful gun owner in NJ, it's my personal responsibility to be aware of the laws affecting my ability to participate in my hobby. Anyone who isn't aware of the laws regarding transportation of firearms and finds themselves in that situation is potentially subject to exactly what you describe.

 

Yeah it sucks, and it's an unnecessarily punitive and capricious regulation, and it should be among the very first that are scrapped when NJ gets around to revisiting their draconian laws, but for now and in the foreseeable future, that's the way it is. Plan your trip accordingly.

[FFDP82 4]

As a lawful gun owner in NJ, it's my personal responsibility to be aware of the laws affecting my ability to participate in my hobby. Anyone who isn't aware of the laws regarding transportation of firearms and finds themselves in that situation is potentially subject to exactly what you describe.

 

Yeah it sucks, and it's an unnecessarily punitive and capricious regulation, and it should be among the very first that are scrapped when NJ gets around to revisiting their draconian laws, but for now and in the foreseeable future, that's the way it is. Plan your trip accordingly.

 

Well said.

[FFDP82 4]

An interesting article from the Examiner about a guy serving 7 years in prison in NJ because the judge refused to tell the jury that the man was, in fact, covered under one of NJ's exemptions. This is a guy who called NJSP and asked how to transport his guns, did as he was told....and is sitting in a prison cell.

 

"Hey David," the Facebook message began, "Thought you might be interested in Brian Aitken, in jail in NJ for 7 years for owning legal guns."

 

I get people approaching me all the time wanting me to write about their legal cases. Most of the time, I get very subjectively-recounted narratives with very little to substantiate, and even less on what the defendants may have actually done. Experience has made me naturally wary of jumping on such bandwagons without investigation.

 

Here's what I've found.

 

His supporters have established the "Free Brian Aitken" Facebook page.

 

Mission: To help free Brian Aitken, an innocent gunowner thrown in jail for moving from CO to NJ with his legally purchased firearms, disassembled and unloaded, locked in his trunk...

 

The "Help Free Brian" entry from BrianDAitken.com gives us more details:

 

At trial Brian Aitken’s defense team showed the jury Brian’s three FBI background checks to lawfully purchase firearms, a number of witnesses—including a Mount Laurel police officer—testified that Brian was moving between residences and all witnesses—including the Mount Laurel police officer—testified that Brian’s firearms were unloaded & locked in the trunk of his car exactly as New Jersey State Law requires…Brian knew how to do this because he had called the New Jersey State Police days earlier to ensure he was in compliance with the law…a fact the Judge ruled inadmissible in the court room.

 

Now, this 26 year old small business owner—with no prior criminal record—is sitting in jail for 7 years simply because a Judge, since removed for misconduct in a different case, refused to allow the jury to apply the state law that allows abiding gun owners to transport their legally owned firearms from one house to another.

 

The jury returned from deliberation three times practically begging the Judge to tell them the law that protects an individuals rights to transport firearms—the Judge outright refused to tell them!

 

By way of clarification, technically, Judge James Morley was not reappointed by Gov. Christie, he claims because of his rulings in two controversial cases.

 

Why Aitken was stopped in the first place may raise some eyebrows:

 

The only reason police were searching his car was in response to a 911 call his mother made when she was concerned about his welfare…not the welfare of anybody else. Brian’s ex-wife had canceled visitation of his infant son once again and his mother’s concerns were about Brian being possibly suicidal….she pleaded to the Judge before his sentencing that she had made the call to protect her son, not to have him thrown in state prison. Brian has no criminal record, no violent tendencies, and owned the weapons lawfully purchased in Colorado as protection for his home and family.

 

Here's the thing: Once it was determined he did not pose a danger to himself or others, why was Aitken not released and his property returned to him?

 

By way of further documentation I have obtained a copy of a request for financial assistance to appeal the case, sent to the Deputy General Counsel of the National Rifle Association (it reminds "The NRA has generously helped to support the defense of his trial..."). I noticed the attorney who drafted the letter was Evan F. Nappen, someone we've featured before in this column--and again. Here are some key facts he raises:

 

New Jersey Statute 2C:39-6e allows a person to possess firearms when moving between one residence and another. as long as the firearms are unloaded and locked in the trunk of the vehicle. as required by N.J.S. 2C:39-6g. Brian complied with this transportation requirement during his move between his parents' house and his new apartment. However, the judge presiding in the case refused to read this possessory exemption to the jury despite counsel's demands and repeated requests by the jury to learn of the firearm possession exemptions.

 

And:

 

The Firearms Owner's Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 926A, protects persons traveling with firearms between two locations where their firearms are lawfully possessed, if they comply with the transportation requirements. As with the New Jersey exemptions, the judge of the court below refused to read this exemption to the jury, deciding for himself that this provision did not apply and that Brian was not entitled to its protection.

 

Likewise, Aitken lawfully possessed ammunition, and importantly:

 

Mr. Aitken was wrongfully convicted of the unlawful possession of large capacity ammunition magazines because the state failed to meet all the elements of the statute.

 

I've since corresponded with Mr. Nappen about this case, and he tells me:

 

The most outrageous thing about the case was the judge's refusal to allow the jury to consider the exemptions that Brian plainly came under. This is very troubling, especially in NJ, where one only lawfully possesses any handgun by way of the exemptions.

 

The thing that strikes me most about this case is the realization that no one is immune to the stresses and misfortunes of life, but that is not a legal basis for the state to strip us of our rights. That and if a judge won't follow the plainly written law, why should anyone?

 

I encourage you to use the links I've provided, to learn more about this case, and to help free Brian Aitken.

 

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/how-can-new-jersey-imprison-a-gun-owner-who-broke-no-laws

[vjf915 456]

Wow.....truly a sad case of misfortune for Brian to get a Judge so ignorant and biased such as that one..... I can only hope that the Judge was removed, did not receive any form of severance pay, his remaining vacation time, or any sort of pension. Absolutely disgusting.

[matty 810]

An interesting article from the Examiner about a guy serving 7 years in prison in NJ because the judge refused to tell the jury that the man was, in fact, covered under one of NJ's exemptions. This is a guy who called NJSP and asked how to transport his guns, did as he was told....and is sitting in a prison cell.

 

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/how-can-new-jersey-imprison-a-gun-owner-who-broke-no-laws

 

Interesting similarities, custody issue, someone actually tipping the cops he had guns. This story concerns the issue of the judge and the law, and sort of glosses over any backstory, if there is more to it. I have not been in court for any criminal matters, but if the judge was so intransigent on not applying the law, what was to stop the defendant from standing up and yelling it out? What are the gonna do, put him in jail? The times I have been in court on civil matters, I was not too impressed with judges, and certainly not attorneys, prosecution or defense. Its not as if they are superhuman Solomons or something, and the game is seriously stacked in the states favour,if they decide to indict.

Eh. Just more examples to remind everyone to watch their six in this state and trust NO ONE when dealing with anyone from the state/local legal apparatus and keep your yap shut and don't consent to anything.

[FFDP82 4]

Interesting similarities, custody issue, someone actually tipping the cops he had guns. This story concerns the issue of the judge and the law, and sort of glosses over any backstory, if there is more to it. I have not been in court for any criminal matters, but if the judge was so intransigent on not applying the law, what was to stop the defendant from standing up and yelling it out? What are the gonna do, put him in jail?

 

Yes, the trend is very, very disturbing. It makes you wonder how can it possibly be that easy to have someone searched, arrested, their property confiscated and thrown in jail facing a laundry list of charges all it takes is a phone call? That's the scary part. What's to stop a crazy ex-girlfriend, a nasty jealous neighbor, to simply wait around the block, watch you leaving the house one saturday on the way to the range and call 911 saying "man in a green toyota headed down main street with a gun" next thing you know you're defending from bogus charges in court and your entire life is potentially ruined. Absolutely sickening.

[bulpup 98]

 

bulpup, on 20 October 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

 

He said "if we really wanted to bust chops we could go up to any out of state truck with a sleeper cab and check it for weapons - but are we going to do that to every working guy sleeping in his truck overnight in New York City?"

 

 

Has he never heard of the fourth amendment or something?

 

The emphasis was on IF when he said it. He was saying that although he knows he could get the "collar" he does not do it. He just lets them be and never takes any action on it.

 

we were talking about tractor's, as in line haul tractor trailers. The kind that park with their engine running all night because the guy is asleep in it.