Jump to content
Col. Mortimer

Brian Aitken, in jail in NJ for 7 years for owning legal guns

Recommended Posts

I heard Dennis & Michele dicussing this on NJ101.5. I do not know if this topic has been brought up in any other forum but here is the link

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in jail in NJ for 7 years for owning legal guns

There's no such charge and that's not what he's in jail for. From what I can gather using Google he was charged with:

 

2C:39-3f - possession of hollow-nose bullets

2C:39-3j - possession of a large-capacity magazine

2C:39-5b - possession of a handgun without a permit to carry

 

It's hard to comment on this or any case without all the details, but it seems like he did break the above laws. Was he traveling from one residence to another while moving without stopping off somewhere else? Obviously not, because he had just left his parents' house where he did not live. The judge also didn't believe he was moving at all and apparently neither did the jury. I'm sure there's much more to this case other than "in jail in NJ for 7 years for owning legal guns".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was moving from his parents house to his own house. It's 100% legal to move your firearms between places of residence. The judge has also since been removed for misconduct.

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was moving from his parents house to his own house. It's 100% legal to move your firearms between places of residence. The judge has also since been removed for misconduct.

 

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

I've read otherwise and it's going to hard to get to the truth without being privy to all the facts of the case. I've read other reports that state he was moving from CO to NJ and never resided with his parents. Again, the judge and jury didn't believe he was moving at that time. Is it 100% legal to have high cap magazines? So what if the judge has since been removed? It was for something unrelated to this case and he thinks he's innocent just as Brian Aitken claims he is.

 

Can someone please downvote DonkeyPunch for me? I seemed to have reached my daily quota.

Did I say something outrageous or out of line? What?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to get the facts straight - he moved back in with his parents, then got his own place. The firearms were all legally owned. He was pulled over solely because of the weapons. An illegal search was conducted on his vehicle. All of the firearms were being transported properly. Regarding the high capacity magazine part - it was only ASSUMED that he had high capacity magazines - there was no proof of it. Brian Aitken had called the NJSP prior to moving back to his parents house to check the laws, which the Judge ruled as inadmissable in court. The Judge also outright refused to tell the jury the actual law that protects the rights to transport guns.

 

http://briandaitken.com/content/2010/11/Brian-Aitken-Summary-of-Facts.pdf

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to get the facts straight...

Those aren't necessarily facts; they are claims. You're not going to get all facts, especially the ones that may be damning, from or about the website of the defendant and a letter from a lawyer with an interest solely for one side. I've read several things that suggest those claims aren't all true, one being that he wasn't pulled over solely because of weapons but because his mother was worried he may commit suicide. I also read he wasn't pulled over but already at his new residence with his handguns and ammunition still in his vehicle.

 

I'm not saying he's not innocent; I'm saying we don't have all the facts of the case and the fear mongering claims about how law abiding gun owners in NJ can end up in jail "for owning legal guns" are at the least a little over the top.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're just arguing semantics. The "facts" that I stated are what I have found from various sites. This is the actual legal summary of facts as put forth by Brian Aitken's lawyer. Yes the traffic stop was because his mother was worried about his mental state at the time, but that by no means is reason to allow the cop to search the car. Also - if he was at his new residence, wouldn't this be a moot point? You're allowed to move things from your car to your residence.

 

It's not really fear mongering when the laws are blatantly ignored by both cops and judges. If you were listening to Dennis & Michele on 101.5 a few days ago when this came up before, you would have heard of several incidents where people were arrested for transporting legal firearms in a legal manner.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
his mother was worried he may commit suicide.

 

She should have called the office of pre-crime. Maybe the pre-ccogs would have seen it coming? :facepalm:

 

Seriously, you know how sometimes your mom gets all worried about something dumb - when you're 4 or 40, and it doesn't really have any reality to it?

 

Yeah....That's probably one of those times......

 

Either way, this case was a great opportunity for jury nullification, too bad none of them were aware of it or used it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're just arguing semantics. The "facts" that I stated are what I have found from various sites. This is the actual legal summary of facts as put forth by Brian Aitken's lawyer.

No, I'm not arguing semantics. Me stating that we have only heard some of one side of the case has nothing to do with semantics.

 

Yes the traffic stop was because his mother was worried about his mental state at the time, but that by no means is reason to allow the cop to search the car.

Yet you said "He was pulled over solely because of the weapons." Could there be even more to why he was pulled over? Was he pulled over at all? Did the cops have some other reason for searching the car other than his mother being worried about suicide? Of course there can.

 

Also - if he was at his new residence, wouldn't this be a moot point?

I don't know, maybe not if he left them in his vehicle instead of moving them into the residence in a timely manner. Especially if the judge and jury didn't buy that he was in the process of moving at that exact time.

 

It's not really fear mongering when the laws are blatantly ignored by both cops and judges.

When we don't have all the facts of the case and the claim is that someone went to jail "for 7 years for owning legal guns", yeah, it really is fear mongering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue that has not been mentioned is illegal intent. Unfortunately, in NJ, it doesn’t matter that you did not intend to break the law and you were not about to commit a crime. I think in most states, the Prosecutor would decide not to drop the case. But here, you broke the law and you are going to jail, end of story. Most cops I speak with say my friend and I go over board with transporting in locked cases, ammo in separate case, no loaded mags. The cops say they aren't looking for us, they want the gang-bangers. But as this case shows, you never know. In NJ, better safe than sorry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, they've gotta keep the jails full somehow. Since they can't keep up with the real bad guys, they just make laws that turn easier people into "bad guys" too.

 

Here's a quote that was written in the 50s.

 

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden."
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't necessarily facts; they are claims. You're not going to get all facts, especially the ones that may be damning, from or about the website of the defendant and a letter from a lawyer with an interest solely for one side. I've read several things that suggest those claims aren't all true, one being that he wasn't pulled over solely because of weapons but because his mother was worried he may commit suicide. I also read he wasn't pulled over but already at his new residence with his handguns and ammunition still in his vehicle.

 

I'm not saying he's not innocent; I'm saying we don't have all the facts of the case and the fear mongering claims about how law abiding gun owners in NJ can end up in jail "for owning legal guns" are at the least a little over the top.

 

+1. You will never get the whole story, just bits there and there. That's how the criminal justice system works. Only the defendant and the investigative team, ie prosecutor, LEO, will know the details. The general population will never know all facts, even in a trial. The attorneys will tell bits and bits b/c they can get into trouble as well as the investigators. Also, its none of your business to know since its between the government and the defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Also, its none of your business to know since its between the government and the defendant.

 

Huh?

 

The majority of court cases are "public", in that anyone can attend them and watch. Court documents, depositions and transcriptions are usually available to the public also (although at a fee) unless the judge seals records.

 

Most state judiciaries encourage "open" courts.

 

Not sure where you're coming up with this "none of your business" theme.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

The majority of court cases are "public", in that anyone can attend them and watch. Court documents, depositions and transcriptions are usually available to the public also (although at a fee) unless the judge seals records.

 

Most state judiciaries encourage "open" courts.

 

Not sure where you're coming up with this "none of your business" theme.

 

My guess is that Mr. Matrix didn't pay much attention in 8th grade Civics class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to comment when everyone is getting all agitated, but....

When I first read about this guy I wrote a letter to Gov. Christie asking him to consider a pardon. I'm sure the guy doesn't want to sit in jail, and shorter sentences are given to actual criminals (actual criminals being people with the intent of breaking laws).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's his information from the Offender Search function of the NJDOC website;

aitken.jpg

For any who care to contact him directly, here's the address of the facility he is being held at;

Mid-State Correctional Facility Annex

P.O. Box 866

Wrightstown, New Jersey 08562

 

His full name and SBI number, followed by the facility address, is the correct way to address the envelope.

You must have a complete return address on the envelope, as well. The mail item will be searched, so don't add anything he might get in trouble for, such as gun photos or the like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's his information from the Offender Search function of the NJDOC

Mid-State Correctional Facility Annex

P.O. Box 866

Wrightstown, New Jersey 08562[/b]

 

His full name and SBI number, followed by the facility address, is the correct way to address the envelope.

You must have a complete return address on the envelope, as well. The mail item will be searched, so don't add anything he might get in trouble for, such as gun photos or the like.

 

Thanks for how to contact him. I will print up a copy of my letter to the Governor and send it to him inn hopes of raising his spirits a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some serious horseshit. His case was featured in an online magazine I subscribe to.

 

I think Plaxico Burress got 18 months for carrying a loaded Glock in Manhattan...

 

And this guy gets 7 years for locked and unloaded firearms in his trunk????

 

 

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine, that because the judge refused to even tell them about the laws, claiming it was "irrelevant", which is what the jury is suppose to determine, they had no choice but to convict him. I bet had there been one gun owner, or someone on the jury who knew the law already, that he would have been found innocent. If only this could get overturned and the judge instead forced to serve out the rest of Aitkens term. That would be real justice. Not this crap about 2nd Amendment hating power mongers making criminals of normal citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more behind Brian if his side would release more information about the circumstances of his arrest and what exactly was found in his trunk. I haven't read anything that tells the State's side of the story.

 

I'm sure Brian's defense attorney told the jury about the gun laws, no? Wouldn't Brian defense simply be "I complied with NJ's gun laws" and explain them to the jury. Something is missing here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Brian's defense attorney told the jury about the gun laws, no? Wouldn't Brian defense simply be "I complied with NJ's gun laws" and explain them to the jury. Something is missing here.

 

It's not that easy. The lawyers don't get to tell the jury how to deliberate and it's VERY dicey for a lawyer to try to tell the jury what the law is (judges get very defensive about this), because that's solely the realm of the judge. So, during closing statements, a defense lawyer MIGHT be able to get away with saying something like "As the judge may tell you, one may transport their weapons from their former residence to a new residence as long as the weapon is locked separately from the ammunition and placed in the vehicle's trunk." But if the judge doesn't tell the jury that that law may be considered in this situation, then the jury is not allowed to make a decision based on a law that they think might or should exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...